From: Chuck Church (cchurch@optonline.net)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 13:05:19 GMT-3
So the problem is the hub router being able to reach the LAN on the other
side of the 2 MP spoke routers? Does the hub have a route for that subnet?
Are you running a routing protocol? Also, you do have different subnets on
the two subinterfaces, right?
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 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Frame Relay and Policy Routing
> 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