From: Kyle Galusha (kgalusha@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Sep 02 2001 - 14:30:03 GMT-3
I suggest a "no frame-relay inarp" before uping the interface. Especially
if you are nailing everything down with frame map statement anyway.
Kyle
At 10:12 AM 9/2/2001 -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
>Daniel,
>
> I'm not sure if Cisco considers it a bug, but that how it works
>sometimes. It doesn't happen all the time, so I'm thinking that the order
>you configure your routers in has an effect. Try keeping both sides of the
>PVC administratively down until you get both addressed, and any frame map
>statements in there. The 'no sh' both sides at about the same time. What I
>think happens is one side Inverse arps to the other side, the other side
>isn't IP addressed yet, even though the PVC is up. So is just uses this
>0.0.0.0 address. Can anyone verify this?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Daniel Hong
>Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 7:52 AM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: FR inverse arp
>
>
>Hi Group,
>
>I experienced a strange thing on a FR interface. The fr inverse arp result
>a 0.0.0.0 ip address.
>
>I tried clear fr inverse-arp, shut down the interface.... Couldn't fix the
>problem.
>
>at the end, I reloaded the router, problem is fixed.
>
>
>the System image file is "flash:c3640-js-mz.121-5.T8.bin"
>
>r2#sh fram map
>Serial0/0 (up): ip 0.0.0.0 dlci 101(0x65,0x1850)
> broadcast,
> CISCO, status defined, active
>
>Serial0/0 (up): ipx 20.0003.6b73.09e0 dlci 101(0x65,0x1850), dynamic,
> broadcast,, status defined, active
>
>
>Did I missed something or it's a bug.
>
>Regards
>
>Daniel
>**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
>**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:13 GMT-3