From: Doug Calton (dcalton@fuse.net)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 12:54:57 GMT-3
The specific configuration is set up so that there are two subinterfaces.
The first goes to a point-to-point (mandated in the lab) connection to one
remote spoke router. The second subinterface connects via multipoint to two
other spokes, with all these spoke interfaces sharing the same subnet with
this second subinterface. The target LAN actually connects these two other
spoke routers on another subnet.
In configuring the second subinterface, I can either specify both dlci's for
the remote spoke routers (interface-dlci) and rely on inarp OR I could use
frame relay map to manually associate the IPs for those remote spokes to the
DLCIs. Using the latter, I can substitute an address for the target LAN to
get the request to "work", but of course, I cannot then access that spoke
router directly anymore. Of course, it is not the right solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Church" <cchurch@optonline.net>
To: "Doug Calton" <dcalton@fuse.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Frame Relay and Policy Routing
> 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