From: Richard Dumoulin (richard.dumoulin@vanco.es)
Date: Fri Feb 27 2004 - 12:05:50 GMT-3
Yep, I am realising that CCBootcamp, IE forums etc... are open to everyone,
including non customers.
My apologies Tyson,
--Richard
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
Enviado el: viernes, 27 de febrero de 2004 15:57
Para: Richard Dumoulin; 'Scott, Tyson C'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Asunto: RE: TASK 11.1 on Lab 13
Is there anything wrong with posting questions like that to a general forum?
I see people do it for CCBootcamp scenarios, for IPExpert scenarios, for
NetMasterclass scenarios... Everyone has their own support forum, but that
doesn't preclude anyone from posting to Groupstudy to perhaps gain the
opinions of people who aren't working on that scenario, or sharing a thought
process. :)
The licensing agreement with each of the companies precludes you from
sharing the lab with people (e.g. copying it), but not from asking questions
about it. Either that or the IE license seems to be interpreted differently
from others I've looked at. *shrug*
Too much thinking. Relax more!
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
JNCIS, et al.
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
http://www.ipexpert.net
(as an obvious note, I'm not with IE, although I never have seen anyone have
a problem with posts from other lab vendors questions)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Dumoulin
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:17 AM
To: Scott, Tyson C; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: TASK 11.1 on Lab 13
I just subscribed to the list yersteday and don't undertand why people are
posting InternetworkExpert scenarios here instead of the IE forum.
I can see 2 reason why this should be done on the forum:
1-- The answer to the issue would be recorded in IE forum for reference of
future IE customers
2-- Is not this breaking IE NDA ?
Please note that I am only an IE customer and I may be wrong. If Brian(s)
are not complaining ...
Just my opinion
--Richard Dumoulin
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Scott, Tyson C [mailto:tyson.scott@hp.com] Enviado el: viernes, 27 de
febrero de 2004 5:36
Para: Scott, Tyson C; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Asunto: RE: TASK 11.1 on Lab 13
This scenario is from Internetwork experts workbook incase you know the
answer but are not responding because you think I am breaking the Cisco
disclosure agreement
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Scott, Tyson C
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 8:46 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: TASK 11.1 on Lab 13
I can't get the following scenario to work. Sending this to you guys to see
if you have any ideas?
The requirements are to setup dialer peers on Router4 and 5. use ppp
encapsulation between the two dial peers. Router5 will have the listed IP
address below but router4 is supposed to request an IP address after it sets
up a connection with Router5. Router4 is also supposed to disconnect the
callin from Router5 and callback Router5.
Now all of this is working for me except for some reason which I don't
understand Router4 gets the ip add 139.4.45.6/32 when I have it setup on the
server to send the address in the range of 139.4.45.0 - 255/24 excluding 0
and .5 since this is the network address and IP address of Router5. So
since router4 is getting the /32 it shows the 139.4.45.5 and 139.4.45.6/32
as connected hosts and refuses the routes from Router5 because I am trying
to inject a default route into it and I can see that
Router5 is sending it and Router4 sees it but it rejects it because it
believes it is from itself. I have been able to figure out why it is broken
but I cannot figure out how to fix it.
Debug on ROUTER4 *Mar 1 08:57:48.661: RIP: ignored v2 update from bad
source 139.4.45.5 on Dialer0
DEBUG ON ROUTER5
*Mar 1 06:53:02.214: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via Dialer0
(139.4.45.5)
*Mar 1 06:53:02.214: RIP: build update entries
*Mar 1 06:53:02.214: 0.0.0.0/0 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
*Mar 1 06:53:02.214: 139.4.2.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
*Mar 1 06:53:02.214: 139.4.5.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
*Mar 1 06:53:02.214: 139.4.11.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
*Mar 1 06:53:02.218: 139.4.15.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
This is all you need to know from Router one is that I have the DHCP Pool
setup correctly
Router1
ip dhcp excluded-address 139.4.45.0 139.4.45.3
ip dhcp excluded-address 139.4.45.5
!
!
ip dhcp pool ISDN
network 139.4.45.0 255.255.255.0
!
!
!
Router5
!
ip dhcp-server 139.4.13.1
!
interface BRI0/0
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
dialer pool-member 1
isdn switch-type basic-ni
isdn spid1 5272045
!
!
interface Dialer0
ip address 139.4.45.5 255.255.255.0
encapsulation ppp
ip policy route-map POLICY_ROUTE
dialer pool 1
dialer idle-timeout 0
dialer string 5272044
dialer watch-group 1
dialer-group 1 (I don't have a dialer-list defined because using dialer
watch)
peer default ip address dhcp
!
router rip
version 2
timers basic 3 18 18 24
redistribute isis level-1 metric 1
passive-interface default
no passive-interface BRI0/0
no passive-interface Ethernet0/1
no passive-interface Dialer0
network 139.4.0.0
network 150.4.0.0
default-information originate route-map CONDITIONAL
no auto-summary
!
dialer watch-list 1 ip 204.12.4.0 255.255.255.0
!
route-map CONDITIONAL permit 10
match ip address prefix-list FRAME
set interface Dialer0 (REMOVED this and it still did not work. I don't
know what this is for but it was given in the example on cisco.com)
!
Router4
!
interface BRI0/0
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
no logging event link-status
dialer pool-member 1
isdn switch-type basic-ni
isdn spid1 5272044
!
!
interface Dialer0
ip address negotiated
encapsulation ppp
dialer pool 1
dialer idle-timeout 0
dialer string 5272045
dialer caller 527xxxx callback
dialer-group 1
!
router rip
version 2
timers basic 3 18 18 24
redistribute connected route-map ETHERNET0/0->RIP
network 139.4.0.0
network 150.4.0.0
no auto-summary
!
ROUTER4'S ROUTING TABLE
B 119.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:19
B 118.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:19
B 117.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:19
B 116.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:19
139.4.0.0/32 is subnetted, 2 subnets
C 139.4.45.6 is directly connected, Dialer0
C 139.4.45.5 is directly connected, Dialer0 (THIS IS WHAT IS
CAUSING IT TO REFUSE THE UPDATES FROM ROUTER5) WHY IS THIS HERE?
B 115.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:19
C 204.12.4.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
B 114.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:19
B 113.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:20
B 112.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:21
28.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets
B 28.119.17.0 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:21
B 28.119.16.0 [20/0] via 204.12.4.254, 00:29:21
150.4.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 150.4.4.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
Dialer0 is up, line protocol is up (spoofing)
Hardware is Unknown
Internet address is 139.4.45.6/32
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 56 Kbit, DLY 20000 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation PPP, loopback not set
DTR is pulsed for 1 seconds on reset
Interface is bound to BR0/0:1
Interface is bound to BR0/0:2
Last input never, output never, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 06:57:58
Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
Queueing strategy: weighted fair
Output queue: 0/1000/64/0 (size/max total/threshold/drops)
Conversations 0/1/16 (active/max active/max total)
Reserved Conversations 0/0 (allocated/max allocated)
Available Bandwidth 42 kilobits/sec
5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
1231 packets input, 173609 bytes
1223 packets output, 80200 bytes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:13:58 GMT-3