From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jun 22 2004 - 16:32:44 GMT-3
Alex,
That sounds like a very creative solution but I don't think this will work.
Can you test this? I don't have a Cat 3550 otherwise I would test it
myself.
Also, could you elaborate a little more about that summary address? Are you
saying to create a summary on the Cat? If so, how would you do that given
that the CAT isn't running a routing protocol. Are you saying, I should just
change the mask to a shorter mask, for example, the original address on the
Cat's interface connecting it to R5 is 142.6.58.8/24. If I change the mask
to /16, then, you're right, the Cat will see the source address of all pings
as on the same subnet and will arp for the L2 mac address. And, then, since
proxy arp is on by default, R5 will take it from there.
If all I have to do is create a summary adddress on the CAT, then this
solution would work and not violate the rules. But, otherwise, I think, so
far, at least, that NAT is the only viable solution that doesn't break the
lab rules.
There are general Lab instructions which prohibit adding or changing any
addresses unless explicitly stated otherwise. So, this wouldn't work in this
particular situation ( the 2ndary address added to the Cat interface), but I
really like the creativity of your solution.
At this point I'm 99% sure the solution being looked for was NAT.
But, thanks, I like that creative thinking.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL)" <alexander.arsenyev@ericsson.com>
To: "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "'Group Study'"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
> Ok, the requirement is now clear.
> How about that:
> 1) summarise all lab networks into one, say, 1.1.0.0/16
> 2) assign unused address from this summarised network to Cat3550 Vlan
interface/L3 interface as secondary, say:
>
> int Vlan10
> ip add 1.1.255.254 255.255.255.0 secondary
>
> 3) then when Cat3550 has a packet (ping) to send to existing address it
will ARP for destination address
> because it will see them as directly connected
> 4) R5 will respond to ARP due to proxy ARP enabled by default
> 5) Cat3550 will use primary address as source of ICMP echo request
> 6) all routers in lab will be able to respond to ping if You configure a
static route on R5 and redistribute it
> into IGP
> 7) the requirement "the only routes it [Cat3550] should have are those
which are directly connected" is also preserved because the route to
1.1.0.0/16 will be shown as "directly connected" in Cat3550 route table.
> Comments, please?
> HTH,
> Cheers
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> Sent: 22 June 2004 19:18
> To: diptish doshi; Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL); 'Group Study'
> Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
>
>
> ODR is an interesting idea although I'm not sure if that will meet the
> requirements of the task.
>
> If I had a 3550, I'd try it out.
>
> "Enable ip routing on the 3550. The only routes it should have are those
> which are directly connected. All other routers should still have ip
> reachability to the 3550's lo0 address. You are allowed one static route
on
> R5"
>
> The general lab instructions prohibit PBR, default routes. etc.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "diptish doshi" <diptishdoshi007@yahoo.com>
> To: "Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL)" <alexander.arsenyev@ericsson.com>;
> "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:59 PM
> Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
>
>
> > hi ,
> > Won't configuring ODR on R5 work ?
> > or im missing something.
> > regards,
> > diptish
> >
> >
> > --- "Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL)"
> > <alexander.arsenyev@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > > PBR is prohibited on R5 only or on both R5 and
> > > Cat3550?
> > > Cheers
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> > > Sent: 22 June 2004 18:21
> > > To: Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL); 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
> > >
> > >
> > > PBR, default network, static routes etc. were
> > > explicitly prohibited for this
> > > task.
> > >
> > > From the posts I've seen so far, it looks like NAT
> > > can be used and possibly
> > > irdp, but I'm not sure irdp would work.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL)"
> > > <alexander.arsenyev@ericsson.com>
> > > To: "'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:06 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
> > >
> > >
> > > > I believe PBR on Cat3550 also suits the
> > > requirement, never tried it myself
> > > though.
> > > > It is supported from IOS 12.1(13)EA1 , see
> > >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c3550/12113ea1/ol366401.htm#89520
> > > > Given that Cisco introduces new features into R&S
> > > lab 6 months after
> > > general release (see
> > >
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/rs/lab_exam_blueprint.html
> > > ) You
> > > are very likely to see Cat3550 with IOS supporting
> > > PBR in actual lab.
> > > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > > ccie2be
> > > > Sent: 22 June 2004 17:45
> > > > To: Larry; 'MMoniz'; 'Group Study'
> > > > Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, ip routing on the Cat was a required
> > > condition of the task. Based
> > > on
> > > > the other posts, I feel safe in saying that what
> > > they were looking for was
> > > > Nat, but I'm still open to the posibility that
> > > irdp could meet the
> > > > requirements, although I'm not yet 100% convinced.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Larry" <groupstudy@american-hero.com>
> > > > To: "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "'MMoniz'"
> > > <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>;
> > > > "'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:39 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From my experience you will need to disable ip
> > > routing on the 3550, and
> > > > just
> > > > > enable irdp under the ethernet interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > The question is are you allowed to disable
> > > routing on the 3550? I know
> > > you
> > > > > said it was enabled, but does it have to stay
> > > enabled?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > ccie2be
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:00 AM
> > > > > To: MMoniz; Group Study
> > > > > Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, Mike. Maybe you're on to something, but...
> > > > >
> > > > > there's only basically one command, ip irdp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using that one command, how do I make R5
> > > generate irdp messages as
> > > opposed
> > > > > to just listening for those messages. And,
> > > likewise with the 3550, how
> > > do
> > > > I
> > > > > make the 3550 listen for irdp instead of sending
> > > them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Tim
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "MMoniz" <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>
> > > > > To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Group
> > > Study"
> > > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:32 AM
> > > > > Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually you would need to enable IRDP on R5
> > > so it will produce IRDP
> > > > > > messages. The Cat will listen to these
> > > > > > as it will be the client.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IRDP has the capability to "intercept" rip and
> > > igrp messages but this
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > a requirement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IRDP actually uses ICMP for messaging as the
> > > name implies. Here is a
> > > > link
> > > > > > for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr
> > > > > > _c/ipcprt1/1cfipadr.htm#1001945
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:17 AM
> > > > > > To: MMoniz; Group Study
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Option isn't allowed - the instructions
> > > explicitly told me to enable
> > > ip
> > > > > > routing on the 3550.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: irdp. I thought of that this morning but I
> > > thought if irdp were
> > > > used,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > would have to be on the 3550. However, since
> > > there's no routing
> > > > protocol
> > > > > > running on the link between the 3550 and R5,
> > > there wouldn't be any
> > > > routing
> > > > > > updates to listen for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, if I remember correctly, irdp only
> > > listens for rip or igrp
> > > updates
> > > > > and
> > > > > > only ospf is running on R5.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think there's still something else I'm
> > > missing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, I'm sure I'll find out, Tim
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "MMoniz" <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>
> > > > > > To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Group
> > > Study"
> > > > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:28 AM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well I would say you have basically 2
> > > options here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Use IRDP on R5
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Disable IP routing on the Cat and
> > > configure a default-gateway.
> > > This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not a static route or a static network!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:47 GMT-3