From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 00:14:51 GMT-3
Why did you disable peer neighbor-route? What exactly does this feature do?
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
________________________________________
From: mani poopal [mailto:mani_ccie@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:13 PM
To: mani poopal; Brian McGahan; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: ppp authentication and ip address negoitated
Hi Brian,
These are the output from both router. R8 router is getting ip address from IPCP(see the show ip int brief output). But I cannot ping the other router.
Mani
R8 ROUTER;
interface Serial0/0
ip address negotiated
encapsulation ppp
no peer neighbor-route
no fair-queue
clockrate 56000
r8#show ip int brief
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol
Ethernet0/0 133.1.28.8 YES NVRAM up down
Serial0/0 150.100.1.2 YES IPCP up up <--IPCP
Loopback0 150.1.8.8 YES NVRAM up up
=================================================================================
R3 ROUTER:
interface Serial0/1
ip address 150.100.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip directed-broadcast
encapsulation ppp
peer default ip address 150.100.1.2
r3#ping 150.100.1.2
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 150.100.1.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
.....
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
r3#
r3#debug ppp negotiation-->Not getting any output
=================================================================================
mani poopal <mani_ccie@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brian,
I thought(seen) this on the previous workbook. But in the new work book you have corrected it and is right(lab3 isdn)[stacker-more cpu intensive, predictor-more memeory intensive]. Keep up your good work/workbook. Regarding ip address negotiated, I will again try this on back to back router lab and send the output.
thanks
Mani
Brian McGahan wrote:
> (1.)The practical studies vol 1 says to stacker is more cpu intensive
and
> predictor is more memory intensive(pg:303). I think from IEWB I
studied
> otherway around. Can somebody confirm
This is correct. Predictor uses more memory because it has to store
previous packet streams to make predictions on further ones. It should
be listed this way in IEWB-RS; if it is not let me know and I'll take a
look at it.
For the second part post your config and "debug ppp negotiation" output.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> mani poopal
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:47 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: ppp authentication and ip address negoitated
>
> Guys two small questions
> (1.)The practical studies vol 1 says to stacker is more cpu intensive
and
> predictor is more memory intensive(pg:303). I think from IEWB I
studied
> otherway around. Can somebody confirm
> (2.)in ppp encapsulation:
> Is it possible to configrue 2 back to back routers with ppp
encapsulation
> and use "peer-default ip address x.x.x.x" on one router and "ip
address
> negotiated "on the other router. and see connectivity between these
two
> routers. I tried but is not working, in the router where ip address
> negotiated was given, it shows ip address by ipcp but doesn't show the
ip
> address. And both interfaces shows up/down(I already checked the
clock
> rate). Any suggestion how the above commands works
>
> thanks
>
> Mani
>
>
> B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
> (416)431 9929
> MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:26 GMT-3