From: Roman Rodichev (rodic000@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu May 17 2001 - 01:22:41 GMT-3
Thanks for a very nice explanation.
Did you ever do lab 8b from the ccbootcamp? You have to create a bvi
interface for ipx configuration, simply because there is a mismatch of
encapsulation.
R5 ---HDLC--- R1 ---NOVELETHER--- R7
and the lab wants to bridge IPX across R1. But since you can't change
encapsulations in this case to match, you have to create BVI on R5 (BVI can
do novell-ether even though serial interface is part of it). R1 simply got
TB set-up. R7 just has ipx address on the eth interface. But here is R5:
int s1
brige-group 1
int bvi 1
ipx netw 700
bridge irb
bridge 1 prot ieee
In order to ping from R5 to R7 or from R7 to R5, you HAVE TO have
bridge 1 bridge ipx AND bridge 1 route ipx TOGETHER
Does that makes sense?
>From: "Pickell, Aaryn" <Aaryn.Pickell@getronics.com>
>To: 'Roman Rodichev' <rodic000@hotmail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: IRB
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:08:59 -0400
>
>The BVI interface just counts as another port on the bridge, though it
>doesn't show up on the show span output. So, things destined for MAC
>addresses located out physical interfaces will be forwarded there normally.
>Frames destined for the MAC address of the BVI will be sent there instead.
>Broadcasts will be sent to both, etc.
>
>I've seen cases where IP addresses on the physical interfaces would still
>work, and you could even route with them. But, they're not supposed to
>work. Per 'Configuring Transparent Bridging' from CCO
>(http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ibm
>_c/bcprt1/bcdtb.htm#xtocid1869428):
>
>"When you intend to bridge and route a given protocol in the same bridge
>group, you must configure the network-layer attributes of the protocol on
>the bridge-group virtual interface. Do not configure protocol attributes on
>the bridged interfaces."
>
>Basically, all of the physical interfaces in the bridge-group represent a
>single Ethernet segment, right? That's the point of bridging... that
>you're
>simulating an ethernet with several smaller ethernets, to avoid contention
>issues, etc. So, imagine the BVI interface as being simply an ethernet
>interface on this meta-ethernet segment. Except that there is no physical
>plug on the router. To put layer 3 addresses on the physical interfaces
>sort of defeats the purpose of bridging in the first place.
>
>Aaryn Pickell - CCNP ATM, CCDP, MCSE
>Senior Engineer - Routing Protocols
>Getronics Inc.
>Direct: 713-394-1609
>Email:aaryn.pickell@getronics.com
>
>This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
>privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me
>immediately by replying to this message and please destroy all copies of
>this message and attachments. Thank you.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roman Rodichev [mailto:rodic000@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 9:44 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: IRB
> >
> >
> > Quick question to everyone,
> >
> > when IRB is doing both bridging and routing for ip, what
> > takes precedence?
> >
> > let's say I got
> >
> > int e0
> > ip add 1.1.1.1 255.0.0.0
> > bridge-group 1
> > int bvi 1
> > (I'm not specifing IP Address here)
> > bridge irb
> > bridge 1 route ip
> > bridge 1 bridge ip
> >
> > I noticed that I can't ping 1.1.1.1 from another router,
> > unless I do "no
> > bridge 1 bridge ip"
> >
> > roman
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:43 GMT-3