From: ying c (bf5tgh1@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 16:34:26 GMT-3
Ming,
I'm not sure this is acceptable or not. But the
problem can be solved either by the secondary address
or tunnel. i.e. add 172.16.58.x/24 between R5 and R8
should solve this discontiguous network problem. If
RIP v1 is used, then we also have to do the same thing
between R3 and R4.
Thanks,
Chang
--- Mingzhou Nie <mnie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This scenario will not work because you have
> discontinuous network.
> Have you taken a look at following tech tips?
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/55.html
>
> Ming
> --- ying c <bf5tgh1@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The topology is like below:
> >
> >
>
172.16.8.8--R8<-igrp->R5<-ospf->R3<-rip->R4--172.16.4.4
> >
> > The network between 2 routers is 160.60.x.x, i.e.
> > R8-160.60.58.8--igrp--160.60.58.5-R5
> > R5-160.60.53.5--ospf--160.60.53.3-R3
> > R3-160.60.34.3--rip---160.60.34.4-R4
> >
> >
> > R5 redistribute igrp and ospf
> > R3 redistribute rip (can be v1 or v2) and ospf
> >
> > The requirement is no static route, no ip
> > default-network, r8 must be able to ping r4's
> > 172.16.4.4.
> >
> > So far I can only come up with one solution which
> is
> > make a tunnel between r8 and r4 and have r4 to run
> > igrp, but I don't think this is the right answer
> > though.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chang
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:48 GMT-3