From: Yakout Esmat (yesmat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jul 15 2002 - 21:02:41 GMT-3
Carlos,
It makes sense, but if I need to hide the default route from routing table,
then I have to point to my local bri interface, otherwsie if I point to next
hop it will be installed in my routing table.
What you are saying is that if I point to my interface it doesn't work??
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos G Mendioroz [mailto:tron@huapi.ba.ar]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:12 AM
To: Yakout esmat
Cc: Groupstudy
Subject: Re: Default route over ISDN
Yakout,
when you send a packet to an interface (via ip route 0.0.0.0/0 int x)
somehow the interface has to encapsulate it and send it.
On DDR interfaces that also accounts for knowing where do you have to
dial to. This is "solved" via maps iif you have a destination IP, but
in your first case, you don't. Therefore, "encapsulation error".
Does this make sense to you ?
Yakout esmat wrote:
>
> Any body aware of this problem..
>
> Scenario:
>
> 10.1.1.1/24--[R1]------(192.168.1.0/24)-----[R2]----
> ISDN
>
> 1) R2 is configured with a static default route
>
> Problem:
>
> 1) If the default static route on R2 is pointing to BRI0 interface "ip
route
> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 bri0", R2 can't ping 10.1.1.1 on R1. Getting
"encapsulation
> failed" error when debuging ip packets, and R2 can't initiate a dial.
>
> 2) If I cahnge the default to point to next hop instead "ip route 0.0.0.0
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1", every thing is sweet
>
> IOS 12.1, legacy ISDN with single dialer map statement is used, IP
classless
> is on...
>
> I must be missing some thing.
>
> Thanks
>
> Yakout
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:31 GMT-3