From: Chuck Church (cchurch@optonline.net)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 12:09:13 GMT-3
Doug,
You've got subinterfaces on the hub router, one of which is a
multipoint. What does the addressing scheme look like and what are you
trying to ping from/to to test it?
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Calton" <dcalton@fuse.net>
To: "Chuck Church" <cchurch@optonline.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: Frame Relay and Policy Routing
> Thanks - the exercise is very specific as to the placement of the policy,
as
> well as the use of set interface over set next-hop. Oddly, the target
> subnet is linked to both spokes of the hub, and the exercise has me
shutdown
> the subnet I/F on the non-target IP. Frame maps is all I see, but it
> targets IP addrs, and not the whole subnet, unfortunately.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Church" <cchurch@optonline.net>
> To: "Doug Calton" <dcalton@fuse.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Frame Relay and Policy Routing
>
>
> > 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 - 17:21:42 GMT-3