From: Gustavo Novais (gustavo.novais@novabase.pt)
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 21:23:34 GMT-3
Hi
Because all RID here are /32. (sorry forgot to mention that) I think
that on a tunnel at a minimum you should have /30 (not to say /31). If
you had indeed a /30 on both loopbacks each on its router .... I think
it should work...
Let me lab it up...
(some time passed)
Yes it does. In this case I didn't have a Loopback specifically on the
Cat, and I had to break the rules of loopbacks 0 being /32 mask, but
works with any other loopback also. If it is stated that we can use it I
think it'll do.
Thanks.
Gustavo
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
robbie
Sent: quarta-feira, 27 de Julho de 2005 0:34
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Question about tunneling and routing protocols
Why not 'ip unnumbered loopback <Area 1 RID>' on R2, for the tunnel
interface connecting to Area115 on SW1?
Gustavo Novais wrote:
> Hello
>
> Often (as is my case now) we find that the solution for a specific
> problem is tunneling. In this case specific, I have a area 115 which
is
> connected to a tottaly stubby area 15, which in turn is connected to
> area 1, which in turn is connected to area 0. (twisted minds who
> invented this scenario)
>
> (Area115)---SW1---(area 15 TS)---R2---(Area1)---R5----Backbone
>
> So to solve this, what I have done (one possible solution) is to vlink
> R2 to R5, and tunneled Sw1 to R2, putting the tunnel interfaces on
both
> ends on area 115.
>
> In order to do this I had to invent a new IP addressing to put on the
> tunnel interfaces. My question is, can we do that on a lab
environment?
>
> Honestly I think not. So, how can we work around this not using new IP
> addressing? IP unnumbered seems obvious, but the problem here is that
> the source interface belongs already to another area, area 15. As area
> 15 is totally stubby we can only see a default coming from R2, so at
the
> first moment we start running OSPF over the tunnel, we will see
> specifically our tunnel source ( reminding that no matter what the
> metric, a specific route is always preferred over a default route)
> through the tunnel and everything will collapse due to recursive
> routing. The only solution I found to this was to use tunnel source
and
> destination as physical directly connected interfaces VLAN on SW1 and
> F0/0 on R2. But as I said earlier those interfaces already belong to
an
> area... so how will we use IP innumbered here to extend area 115
(which
> needs to be connected to the backbone, or like, as is R2 through
> Vlink).?
>
> It was just a question I put to myself as I happily invented new
> networks as I saw fit, and thought " what about in the lab?"
>
> Any thoughts are welcome.
>
> Thank you
>
> Gustavo
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:00:31 GMT-3