From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 10:00:13 GMT-3
Hey Alex,
This is certainly an interesting approach, but I'm not sure I fully
understand everything that's going on.
It appears that to make this work, it's necessary to create a static arp
entry for every potential source ip address in the network. But, if you
have to do that, what purpose is served by the summary 2ndary address?
One other potential problem that I see is that if any addresses are added
anywhere to the network, then it becomes necessary to add another static arp
entry on the Cat.
Now, I see you tested pinging from the CAT to R5, but did you test pinging
from R5 to the CAT? If so, what happened?
Recall that to meet the requirements of this task, the CAT had to be
reachable from anywhere in the network, but it wasn't necessary for the CAT
to initiate traffic to anywhere in the network.
Looking at the output of the debug, do you know how to interpret the
following lines?
> 00:17:12: IP ARP: creating incomplete entry for IP address: 142.6.14.5
interface
> Vlan1
> 00:17:12: IP ARP: sent req src 142.6.255.254 0008.e3c3.7b00,
> dst 142.6.14.5 0000.0000.0000 Vlan1
> 00:17:12: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5
Why is the CAT "creating incomplete entry IP address: 142.6.14.5" ?
Is this what happens before you create the static arp entries?
And, what does "IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5"
actually mean?
Also, what determines which source address, the primary or 2ndary, the CAT
uses when it sends packets out towards R5?
And, why is there a problem if the CAT uses the 2ndary address? Won't R5
just add the mac address of the source arp requrest to it's arp cache?
I really appreciate you're doing this, not because it's a great solution to
the task, but because it gets into the details of what's actually going on.
Overall, I'm quite convinced that the best solution is using NAT, but your
approach has created a wonderful learning experience.
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: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:00 AM
Subject: RE: Routing without routing protocol/success (after correction) -
long text
> Hello Tim,
>
> I've tested my solution between Cat3550 and 2511 router (I've sold my CCIE
rack some time ago and had to borrow the kit) - the only boxes I managed to
get hold of.
> Though 2511 did not run any routing protocol (in absense of other routers)
I've configured a number of loopback interfaces on 2511 to simulate
subnets - I believe this workaround is representative.
>
> Now the configs and debugs :-)
> R5#sh run
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration:
> !
> version 11.0
> service udp-small-servers
> service tcp-small-servers
> !
> hostname R5
> !
> !
> ip subnet-zero
> !
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 142.6.13.5 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Loopback1
> ip address 142.6.14.5 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Loopback2
> ip address 142.6.23.5 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Loopback3
> ip address 142.6.43.5 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 142.6.58.5 255.255.255.0 <------Link to Cat3550
> no ip mroute-cache
> !
> interface Serial0
> no ip address
> no ip mroute-cache
> shutdown
> !
> interface Serial1
> no ip address
> no ip mroute-cache
> shutdown
> !
> ip classless
> ip route 150.6.8.0 255.255.255.0 142.6.58.35
> logging buffered 65536
> alias exec ib show ip int brief
> alias exec ir show ip route
> alias exec io show ip ospf
> alias exec ig show ip bgp
> !
> line con 0
> line 1 16
> no exec
> transport input telnet
> line aux 0
> transport input all
> line vty 0 4
> password cisco
> login
> !
> end
> Cat3550#sh run
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 2490 bytes
> !
> version 12.1
> no service pad
> service timestamps debug uptime
> service timestamps log uptime
> no service password-encryption
> !
> hostname Cat3550
> !
> !
> ip subnet-zero
> ip routing
> !
> !
> spanning-tree mode pvst
> spanning-tree extend system-id
> !
> !
> !
> !
> !
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 150.6.8.8 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/1
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/2
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/3
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/4
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/5
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/6
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/7
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/8
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/9
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/10
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/11
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/12
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/13
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/14
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/15
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/16
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/17
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/18
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/19
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/20
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/21
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/22
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/23
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/24
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface GigabitEthernet0/2
> switchport mode dynamic desirable
> !
> interface Vlan1
> ip address 142.6.255.254 255.255.0.0 secondary
> ip address 142.6.58.35 255.255.255.0
> !
> ip classless
> ip http server
> !
> arp 142.6.13.5 0010.7be8.7281 ARPA <--------this is required for my
solution to work
> arp 142.6.14.5 0010.7be8.7281 ARPA <--------the MAC address is R5' E0
interface MAC
> arp 142.6.23.5 0010.7be8.7281 ARPA
> arp 142.6.43.5 0010.7be8.7281 ARPA
> alias exec ib sh ip int brief
> alias exec ir show ip route
> alias exec io show ip ospf
> alias exec ig show ip bgp
> !
> line con 0
> exec-timeout 0 0
> privilege level 15
> line vty 0 4
> privilege level 15
> no login
> line vty 5 15
> privilege level 15
> no login
> !
> !
> end
>
> As You can see I've added a number of sttaic ARP entries to Cat3550 (one
for each Lo interface on R5). Without them
> the Cat3550 sends ARP request but never gets a reply:
>
> Cat3550#ping 142.6.14.5
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 142.6.14.5, timeout is 2 seconds:
> 00:17:12: IP ARP: creating incomplete entry for IP address: 142.6.14.5
interface
> Vlan1
> 00:17:12: IP ARP: sent req src 142.6.255.254 0008.e3c3.7b00,
> dst 142.6.14.5 0000.0000.0000 Vlan1
> 00:17:12: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5.
> 00:17:14: IP ARP: sent req src 142.6.255.254 0008.e3c3.7b00,
> dst 142.6.14.5 0000.0000.0000 Vlan1
> 00:17:14: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5.
> 00:17:16: IP ARP: sent req src 142.6.255.254 0008.e3c3.7b00,
> dst 142.6.14.5 0000.0000.0000 Vlan1
> 00:17:16: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5.
> 00:17:18: IP ARP: sent req src 142.6.255.254 0008.e3c3.7b00,
> dst 142.6.14.5 0000.0000.0000 Vlan1
> 00:17:18: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5.
> 00:17:20: IP ARP: sent req src 142.6.255.254 0008.e3c3.7b00,
> dst 142.6.14.5 0000.0000.0000 Vlan1
> 00:17:20: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 142.6.14.5.
> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>
> I guess because 142.6.255.254 is not on common subnet between R5 then R5
does NOT reply to ARP request from Cat3550.
> After adding static ARP entries the things started to work:
> Cat3550#sh deb
> Generic IP:
> ICMP packet debugging is on
> Cat3550#ping 142.6.43.5
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 142.6.43.5, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/4 ms
> Cat3550#
> 00:31:19: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 142.6.43.5, dst 142.6.58.35
> 00:31:19: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 142.6.43.5, dst 142.6.58.35
> 00:31:19: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 142.6.43.5, dst 142.6.58.35
> 00:31:19: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 142.6.43.5, dst 142.6.58.35
> 00:31:19: ICMP: echo reply rcvd, src 142.6.43.5, dst 142.6.58.35
> Cat3550#
>
> As You can see Cat3550 pings R5 with source address of 142.6.58.35
(primary on interface Vlan1) and receives replies from R5.
> Otherwise if Cat3550 would send ICMP Echo with source address of
142.6.255.254 it would never receive a reply!
>
> I believe static ARP entries and secondary addresses on Cat3550 are not
explicitly prohibited by Your lab scenario (as per Brian's email):
> 5.30. Enable IP routing on SW2.
> 5.31. SW2's only connection to the rest of the routing domain is through
> R5.
> In order to minimize memory and CPU utilization on SW2, the only
> routes that it should have are those which are directly connected.
> 5.32. All other routers should still have IP reachability to SW2's
> loopback
> address.
> 5.33. You are allowed one static route on R5.
>
> Can't see anything about secondary addresses/static ARP entries
>
> HTH,
> Cheers
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> Sent: 22 June 2004 21:26
> 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.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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:48 GMT-3