From: Carlos (cchorao@xtra.co.nz)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 07:30:25 GMT-3
David,
My findings on the scenario you outlined are as follows :
1) R2 ignores the update from R1 for net 2.2.2.0 . You can see this
when you deb ip rip , the message goes something like this
"ignored v1 update from bad source 2.2.2.2 on BRI0. Consequently net
2.2.2.0 never added to the route table.
2)If I enter the "no validate-update-source" under rip on R2 , the
update is received, the route is entered in the route table and R2 is able
to ping the secondary without the additional dialer map statement ( the
route table shows the dest 2.0.0.0 as reachable through 10.10.10.1)
What were your findings ?
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "csc david" <davidcsc2002@yahoo.com.cn>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:22 PM
Subject: an isdn question
> r1-----------isdn-----------r2
>
> r1:
> > int bri0
> > ip add 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.252 second
> > ip add 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
> > no ip spli-hori
> > enca ppp
> > dialer map ip 10.10.10.2 name r2 br xxxx
> > dialer-group 1
> >
> > router rip
> > network 10.0.0.0
>
> network 2.0.0.0
>
>
> > r2:
> >
> > int bri0
> > ip add 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
> > enca ppp
> > dialer map ip 10.10.10.1 name r1 br yyyy
> > dialer-group 1
> >
> > router rip
> > network 10.0.0.0
> >
>
> if r2 wand to see the 2.0.0.0 route, does r2 need to add "dialer map ip
2.2.2.2 name r1 br" ?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> "JGIT>+S"Bp#?P!JTE#56;qJ1IP4s=1#!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:11 GMT-3