From: etaylor10@tampabay.rr.com
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 13:24:40 GMT-3
Ed,
Oops, change that to "network 3.3.32.0 0.0.0.255"
I just typed the config up by hand.
R2 should know about Cat35501's network but Cat35501 only knows about his locally connected network.
Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Lui <edwlui@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 7, 2005 11:06 am
Subject: Re: Local Policy Based Routing - Telnet?
> 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