From: Rob Rummel (Rummel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 05:18:04 GMT-3
I also tested this today. I did not put priority on both IRDP routers
but what I did is have 10 on one and left the default on the other.
After the traceroute I saw it taking the route of the one with the
higher priority of 10.
I then switched and had one at 0 preference which is default and another
at
-10
And then after traceroute it took the one with 0
Using 12.05(T) on both routers and not sure what ver I had on the router
simulating the host.
Rob Rummel
-Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny-
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Sandro Ciffali
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 3:22 PM
To: Jason Sinclair; 'JOSE ANGEL MARTINEZ DE LA VARA'; Richard Wheat
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: IRDP
I was trying irdp on ver 12.2.5, I too had problems in making this work,
Finaly managed to get it work on 12.1.9a
Here is what i did
On one router configure following
int e0/0
ip address x.x.x.x
ip irdp
ip irdp preference 100
On the second router i configured ip irdp preference 500
Now on the client, I configured no ip routing and ip address. Also did
no ip
route-cache on all the three routers (Two irdp and one client) Now
without
running gdp irdp on the client, Everything works fine due to proxy arp
enabled on the interfaces. But the right way of doing it is using gdp
irdp
on the client (you don't need ip irdp on the client)
However with this setup though I see the lower irdp preference makes thr
router as the gateway, Exactly opposite to the doc. CD. However i am
not
ready to take any chances if asked to be done in the lab i would follow
the
doc. CD blindly
Sandro
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JOSE ANGEL MARTINEZ DE LA VARA
> [mailto:jamartinez@landata.payma.es]
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2002 19:03
> To: 'Sandro Ciffali'; Richard Wheat
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: IRDP
>
> Hi,
>
> Could you please send us your client router configuration? I
> couldn't make
> it work as a IRDP client although the ICMP messages were
> received but not
> processed. I tried both 'ip irdp' enabled and disabled in
> the client
> interface and none work. I had disabled proxy-arp since IRDP
> is supposed to
> provide a default router.
>
> My copnfig in rhe IRDP "server" is:
>
> interface fastethernet 0/0
> ip irdp
> ip irdp maxadvertinterval 10
> ip irdp preference 50
>
> And in the client router
>
> interface ethernet 0
> ip irdp
>
> I tried both ip routing disabled with ip host-routing
> enabled and ip routing
> enabled alone but none worked.
>
> Any suggestion?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jose Angel
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Sandro Ciffali [mailto:sandyccie@yahoo.com]
> Enviado el: viernes, 08 de marzo de 2002 01:09
> Para: Richard Wheat
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Asunto: Re: IRDP
>
>
> I used router as a host and it definatly showed me the
> result i said before, However i did not test with a pc
> client, I don't see any difference in the pc behaviour
> but i will test, Unless microsoft implements tcp/ip in
> a different way ;-), I will definatly try a host pc
> doing the same thing to confirm, thanks for the
> update.
>
> Sandro
> --- Richard Wheat <rwheat@ami.com.au> wrote:
> > Sandro,
> >
> > I believe your testing maybe fundamentally flawed
> > :-(
> >
> > After duplicating your setup I could not get a
> > router to act
> > successfully as a IRDP client. So I connected up a
> > Windows 2000 machine
> > and configured it to use IRDP. The machine
> > installed default routes to
> > both my test IRDP routers, but preferred the one
> > with the higher
> > preference setting and installed this as the default
> > gateway. Changing
> > the preference setting made the host install
> > whichever router advertised
> > the higher preference value. Windows seems to use
> > "1001 minus the
> > advertised preference" to set the metric for the
> > installed routes.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Richard.
> >
> > Sandro Ciffali wrote:
> >
> > > I have a question about irdp,
> > >
> > > Even though the doc says higher preference is
> > prefered
> > > to be the default g/w, In realitiy it is opposite.
> > >
> > > I am testing this with 12.1.9 routers running the
> > > irdp, The client chooses the least ip irdp
> > preference
> > > default g/w. No it is not route-cache, i have
> > disabled
> > > it. I am clearing arp everytime. I can clearly see
> > the
> > > g/w being changed towards the least priority.
> > >
> > > All I am asking is what should be done in the lab
> > if
> > > asked to do it? Follow the reality or do it
> > according
> > > to the doc.??
> > >
> > > Can some one pls. advice.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > > Sandro
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:11 GMT-3