From: Richard Dumoulin (richard.dumoulin@vanco.es)
Date: Tue Jun 22 2004 - 17:46:27 GMT-3
Hehe, Alexander proposed something similar for the GRE tunnel solutions of
the separated OSPF area 0 sometime ago.
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: martes, 22 de junio de 2004 22:26
To: Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL); 'Group Study'
Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
Alex,
I think you might be the only person to come up with an alternative solution
to NATing that would both work and not violate any lab rules.
In this lab, the Cat's lo0 addr is 150.6.8.8/24.
The subnet between the Cat and R5 is 142.6.58.0/24 and all the subnets in
the network are of a form 142.6.x.y/24 where x equals the number of the
routers on either side of the link, for example, 142.6.13.y is the link
between R1 and R3, and y equals the host address.
Is it possible for you to test this?
If this really works that would be a very cool solution.
Thanks, 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 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol
> Hello Tim,
>
> Suppose You have been given a block of IP addresses for lab routers:
1.1.0.0/16
> The example Cat3550 config might look like following:
>
> interface Vlan10
> !the L3 interface which faces R5
> ip address 1.1.128.10 255.255.255.0
> !the link endpoint IP address, R5 has 1.1.128.5/24
> ip adress 1.1.0.254 255.255.128.0 secondary <-----summary for all
> other
lab IP addresses
> !
> !
> interface Lo0
> ip address 1.1.129.20 255.255.255.0
> !
> You would have to play with summary address, or have to configure
> several
summary addresses depending on how discontiguous
> the lab subnetting is. The summary must not overlap Cat3550 Vlan10 and
> Lo0
IP addresses or it will be impossible to configure such secondary address.
> HTH,
> Cheers
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> Sent: 22 June 2004 20:33
> To: Alexander Arsenyev (GU/ETL); 'Group Study'
> Subject: Re: Routing without routing protocol
>
>
> 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.ht
> > > ml
> > > > ) 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