From: Simon Baxter (Simon.Baxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Aug 14 2000 - 23:58:35 GMT-3
I suppose you could route on the interfaces and do a ip unnumbered BVI1 -
but why would you want to? I guess it would only pass IP traffic and no
other bridged stuff.
ah well,
guess I'm thinking out loud!
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Hescock [mailto:bhescock@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 12:57 PM
To: Brian Edwards
Cc: Simon Baxter; 'abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com'; dwyer@tatrc.org;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Free scenario
ip unnumbered, by design, has to be on both sides of the link. It may
"work" with it on only one side but it could have undesirable effects down
the road... I believe the config proposed with ip unnumbered only had it
configured on one side of the link.
Brian
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Brian Edwards wrote:
> Simon, wins the cigar.
>
> Yeah, the key that I stumbled upon was that you can't make the R1 frame
> interface route IP; it must bridge and use a dead-end single-interface
BVI.
> On r3 ethernet you can put the IP address directly on the interface (no
IRB
> config), but Simon's solution using a BVI works too.
>
> I'll try out the unnumbered solution tonight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Baxter [mailto:Simon.Baxter@au.logical.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:04 PM
> To: Brian Edwards; 'abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com'; dwyer@tatrc.org
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Free scenario
>
>
> Usual story, be careful to have the same 'type' code for each interface -
ie
> don't have a routed interface at one end of a serial link and a bridged at
> the other.
>
> Dont forget those 'broadcasts'!!!
>
>
> hostname 1
> !
> frame-relay switching
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> no ip address
> shutdown
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no ip mroute-cache
> clockrate 64000
> frame-relay map bridge 100 broadcast
> frame-relay interface-dlci 100
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface BVI1
> ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> ip classless
> !
> bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
> !
> end
>
> hostname 2
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> no ip address
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no ip mroute-cache
> frame-relay map bridge 100 broadcast
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface BVI1
> ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
> !
> ip classless
> !
> bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
> !
> end
>
> hostname 3
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> no ip address
> bridge-group 1
> !
> interface BVI1
> ip address 10.1.1.4 255.255.255.0
> !
> bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Edwards [mailto:bedwards@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:41 AM
> To: 'abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com'; dwyer@tatrc.org
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Free scenario
>
>
> With "no ip routing" on R2, then R2 would not be pingable. You must use
IRB.
> (but there is definitely a hitch).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com [mailto:abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 5:35 PM
> To: dwyer@tatrc.org
> Cc: Brian Edwards; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Free scenario
>
>
>
> If we only enable bridging ( Transparent bridging ) and donot enable
> wouldn't that work
> There should be no ip routing on R2 and it will just bridge the IP packets
> from R1 to R3 and vice versa ,or IRB would be necesary in this scenario
>
>
>
>
>
> dwyer@tatrc.org (Lawrence Dwyer)@groupstudy.com on 08/14/2000 05:04:10 PM
>
> Please respond to dwyer@tatrc.org (Lawrence Dwyer)
>
> Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
>
>
> To: Brian Edwards <bedwards@juniper.net>
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Free scenario
>
>
> How about IRB?
> Bridge group 1 the FR and E-net links, create a BVI 1 with the IP addy
> routing
> IP.
> Larry
>
> Brian Edwards wrote:
>
> > Here is a decent little scenario (IMHO). If you think it sucks, well you
> get
> > what you pay for. I would like to know how people resolved it (in case
> there
> > are other ways to do this that I didn't think about. Here it is...
> >
> > [R1]------[R2]------[R3]
> >
> > R1-R2 link is Frame Relay
> > R2-R3 is Ethernet
> > All three routers have interfaces on the 10.1.1.0/24 subnet and can ping
> > each other directly on that subnet.
> > Do not use proxy-ARP to solve the problem.
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:25 GMT-3