From: Dillon Yang (gzdillon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 12:46:36 GMT-3
Hi, Eric:
I think the respond is normal, because r2 knows the route to telnet <c3550> and c3550 does not know the route to telnet <r2>.
HTH
dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Taylor" <etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:58 PM
Subject: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet?
> Hey Group,
>
> If you apply a local policy, should telnet traffic originated from that
> device be considered local traffic such as pings?
>
> In my testing so far, this is what I've found.
>
> R2 ----> R3 ----> Cat35501(SVI)
>
>
> Cat35501 doesn't know about the network between R2 and R3. R2 does know
> about the network between R3 and Cat35501. I applied a local policy on
> Cat35501 that sets the next hop to R3.
>
> R2 can ping Cat35501
> R2 can telnet to Cat35501 <---- I guess the Cat considers it local when R2
> telnets to Cat35501.
> Cat35501 can ping R2
> Cat35501 CAN'T telnet to R2 <---- When I "debug ip policy" and "debug ip
> packet", I don't see anything generated.
>
>
> Cat35501#telnet 192.168.2.22
> Trying 192.168.2.22 ...
> % Destination unreachable; gateway or host down
>
> Cat35501#
>
>
> It looks as if the telnet session from the Cat35501 isn't getting classified
> as local.
>
> I guess it is doing a route lookup first and doesn't see the destination
> route. Therefore, it doesn't even begin to initiate the telnet session which
> would explain why I don't get any output from "debug ip packet".
>
> Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>
> TIA,
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:42 GMT-3