From: Ed Lui (edwlui@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 13:06:16 GMT-3
Eric,
R3:
interface e0/0
Description ** R3 --> R2 **
ip address 3.3.32.3 255.255.255.0 <<<<-------HERE------->
!
interface e0/1
Description ** R3 --> Cat35501 VLAN 20 **
ip address 3.3.37.3 255.255.255.0
!
router eigrp 100
no auto-summary
network 3.3.23.0 0.0.0.255 <<<<-------HERE-------
network 3.3.37.0 0.0.0.255
!
Was the wrong network advertised?
-- Edward (A+, Net+, MCP, MCP+I, MCSE, CCNA, CCNP)On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:46:02 -0500, etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com <etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > Dillon, > That would work, but I'm trying to figure out why telnet that is sourced from a 3550 wouldn't fall under the local policy that is applied. > > I'm going to make up some configs here. > > R2 ----- R3 ------ Cat35501 > > R2: > > interface ethernet0/0 > ip address 3.3.32.2 255.255.255.0 > ! > router eigrp 100 > network 3.3.32.0 0.0.0.255 > no auto-summary > ! > > R3: > > interface e0/0 > Description ** R3 --> R2 ** > ip address 3.3.32.3 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface e0/1 > Description ** R3 --> Cat35501 VLAN 20 ** > ip address 3.3.37.3 255.255.255.0 > ! > router eigrp 100 > no auto-summary > network 3.3.23.0 0.0.0.255 > network 3.3.37.0 0.0.0.255 > ! > > Cat35501: > > ! > ip local policy route-map DEFAULT > ! > interface vlan 20 > ip address 3.3.37.7 255.255.255.0 > ! > route-map DEFAULT permit 10 > set ip next-hop 3.3.37.3 > ! > > That is the basic configs. > > Telnet fails when Cat35501 tries to connect to R2. > Pings and telnet from R2 to Cat35501 work fine. > Pings from Cat35501 to R2 work fine. > > Eric > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dillon Yang <gzdillon@hotmail.com> > Date: Monday, March 7, 2005 1:38 am > Subject: Re: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet? > > > Hi, Eric: > > > > I made "no ip routing" on the switch with default-gateway, based > > on your topology, it worked well. Then, the problem is in your > > configuration.Can you show it? > > dillon > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Taylor" <etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com> > > To: "Dillon Yang" <gzdillon@hotmail.com> > > Cc: "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com> > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 5:11 AM > > Subject: RE: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet? > > > > > > > Dillon, > > > > > > What boggles me is that the 3550 treats the packets going back > > to R2 as > > > locally sourced but won't treat a telnet originating from the > > switch as > > > local. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dillon Yang [gzdillon@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:47 AM > > > To: Eric Taylor > > > Cc: Group Study > > > Subject: Re: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet? > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Subscription information may be found at: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > _______________________________________________________________________ > 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