From: Chuck Church (cchurch@optonline.net)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 22:21:14 GMT-3
Doug,
I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but it sounds like you're policy
routing on the wrong router. I don't see why policy routing would be
required at the hub router, as it's got PVCs to all the others, right? This
sounds a lot like one of the bootcamp labs, if I remember right. If router
A is your hub, with B and C as spokes, you could policy route on B so that
traffic to C, make A the next hop. Same principle is applied to C. The
other way of course would be using frame maps.
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Calton" <dcalton@fuse.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:40 PM
Subject: Frame Relay and Policy Routing
> I am working on a training scenario where we are to route traffic destined
for
> a specific IP subnet through a Frame Relay partially meshed network, by
using
> the "set interface" command of the route-map subcommand. The router to
which
> the policy is applied uses subinterfaces, and the subinterface that I am
> setting in route-map is a multipoint interface acting as the hub to a
frame
> relay subnet.
>
> When configured normally, the routing policy works, but the packet is
dropped
> because of encapsulation failure leaving the frame relay subint. I can
get
> the configuration to "work" by configuring a frame-relay map statement for
a
> destination IP address in the target subnet, but this is not an ideal
> solution. Is there an more generalized way to encapsulate the exiting
traffic
> to the appropriate dlci, or possibly another approach to allowing this
traffic
> to traverse the frame-relay network? Thanks!
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:41 GMT-3