From: Brian Dennis (bdennis@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 12:37:00 GMT-3
Mani,
You did bounce the interface after enabling the command correct? Here is the exact configuration:
Rack1R2#sho run int s0/1
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 84 bytes
!
interface Serial0/1
ip address negotiated
encapsulation ppp
no fair-queue
end
Rack1R2# ping 150.100.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 150.100.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/29/32 ms
Rack1R2# 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 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 56/59/68 ms
Rack1R2#
Rack2AS>3
[Resuming connection 3 to r3 ... ]
Rack2R3#sho run int s1/3
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 161 bytes
!
interface Serial1/3
ip address 150.100.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip directed-broadcast
encapsulation ppp
peer default ip address 150.100.1.2
clockrate 64000
end
Rack2R3#ping 150.100.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 150.100.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 56/59/68 ms
Rack2R3#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 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/29/33 ms
Rack2R3#
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 703
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 703
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
________________________________________
From: mani poopal [mailto:mani_ccie@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:27 AM
To: Brian Dennis; Brian McGahan; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: ppp authentication and ip address negoitated
Hi Brian & Tim,
Thanks for the replies. Brian I enabled peer neighbor route. Still the same and getting quite interesting. I am attaching show run/show ip int brief/show ip route and ping output from both the router. Can you see what is the mistake and should this config work.
======================================
r3#show run int s 0/1
Building configuration...
Current configuration:
!
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
end
r3#i
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol
Serial0/1 150.100.1.1 YES manual up up
r3#show ip route
Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, * - candidate default
U - per-user static route, o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
T - traffic engineered route
Gateway of last resort is not set
150.100.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
C 150.100.1.2/32 is directly connected, Serial0/1
C 150.100.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/1
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#
==========================================
r8#show run int s 0/0
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 101 bytes
!
interface Serial0/0
ip address negotiated
encapsulation ppp
no fair-queue
clockrate 56000
end
r8#i
Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol
Serial0/0 150.100.1.2 YES IPCP up up
r8#show ip route
Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter area
* - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR
P - periodic downloaded static route
Gateway of last resort is not set
150.100.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 150.100.1.2 is directly connected, Serial0/0
r8#ping 150.100.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 150.100.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
.....
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
r8#
thanks
Mani
===========================================
Brian Dennis <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
Mani,
Look into when you should and when you should not disable the
"peer neighbor-route" command. In your situation, it should be left
enabled. Just look at the routing table and you will see that you do
not have a route to the remote router. The "peer neighbor-route"
command will enable you to reach the remote router.
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 703
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 703
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 9:08 PM
To: Brian McGahan; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: ppp authentication and ip address negoitated
Brian I thought by disabling this feature, router will not istall a 32
bit host route in the routing table. I thought it is a good idea to
disable peer-neighbor route whenever you enable PPP.(may be it is ture
only in a dialer watch situation). I would like to get your feedback.
thanks
Mani
Brian McGahan wrote:
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 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