From: Brian S turner (brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 11:35:43 GMT-3
Abdul,
In your solution R2 wouldn't be able to be on the same subnet, so IRB would
be needed to add a L3 interface into the bridgegroup on R2 so that it could
ping R1 and R3.
Brian Edwards,
The only hitch I can see is that you have to tell the bridge group to both
Bridge Ip and Route Ip. Is this the hitch you are speaking of? If not I
will have to set it up.
regards,
Brian Turner
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
abdul_rahim@ccsi.canon.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 7:35 PM
To: Lawrence Dwyer
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 - 08:24:26 GMT-3