From: Jian Gu (guxiaojian@gmail.com)
Date: Wed May 31 2006 - 12:36:02 ART
Dave,
I don't have the lab set up, so I can not post the configuration right now,
but it is straightforward.
Suppose your hub's IP address is 10.10.10.100 and two or your spoke's IP
addresses are 10.10.10.1 and 10.10.10.2 respectively, and on spokes you only
have explicit frame relay to the hub(aka one frame-relay map statement).
Say you want to ping from 10.10.10.1 to 10.10.10.2, the router will try to
find the right L2 encapsulation for 10.10.10.2, but since you don't have the
L2 encapsulation information for it, the encap will fail. Now if you
configure a local PBR route map says that if the destination is
10.10.10.0/24, the next hop is 10.10.10.100, the router will then use
10.10.10.100's L2 encap and happily deliver it the the wire. Do the same
thing on the other spoke.
IT WILL WORK.
Jian
On 5/31/06, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I thought it would not work due to the trying to send something from
> one link to another that basically has the same ip address, which
policy-map
> doesn't allow. I labbed it up and it happened as I thought.you would get
> encapsulation failed. I believe that there is no solution in this
scenario,
> within eigrp, other than to use separate subnet addressing, or, to map the
> spokes to each other. It was a fun, thought provoking exercise though. I
> learned something here.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
>
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <dschulz@dpsciences.com%20>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Jian Gu [mailto:guxiaojian@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:04 AM
>
> *To:* Schulz, Dave
> *Cc:* Cisco certification
> *Subject:* Re: Frame - eigrp and split horizon
>
>
>
> Really? did you try it? how did you configure local PBR? I thought this is
> going to obviously work.
>
> On 5/30/06, *Schulz, Dave* < DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, I believe that the explicit frame-relay mapping is needed.
> Local policy will not help here, since you telling the router to look for a
> route on an already connected interface, which it cannot find.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Schulz, CCDP, CCNP, CCSP
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <dschulz@dpsciences.com%20>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Jian Gu [mailto:guxiaojian@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:39 PM
> *To:* Schulz, Dave
> *Cc:* Cisco certification
> *Subject:* Re: Frame - eigrp and split horizon
>
>
>
> Since the destination you are trying to ping is directly connected, it
> does not matter whether you have ip split horirzon configured or not, you
> will have encap failure. In order to ping spoke to spoke, you either need
to
> configure explicit frame-relay mapping or configure local policy based
> routing.
>
> On 5/30/06, *Schulz, Dave* <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
>
> Question on split horizon....
>
> I set up a hub router on a frame with the following configuration.....
>
> interface Serial0/0
> ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no ip split-horizon eigrp 100
> frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.1 102
> frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.2 102 broadcast
> frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.3 103 broadcast
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
> !
> router eigrp 100
> network 192.168.1.0
> no auto-summary
>
> There are two remote sites, with the following configuration.....
>
> interface Serial0/0
> ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no frame-relay inverse-arp IP 203
> no frame-relay inverse-arp IP 204
>
>
> and......
>
> interface Serial0
> ip address 192.168.1.3 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no frame-relay inverse-arp IP 302
> no frame-relay inverse-arp IP 304
> !
> Both set up with eigrp 100. They both form the neighbor relationship
> with the hub router. However, there is still not connectivity from
> spoke to spoke (even though split horizon is disabled). I know that
> everything works if I statically map everything, just trying to
> understand a little further on the eigrp between multiple routers. I
> was thinking that this may be a recursive issue, but I see that we have
> the route recursing to the hub router, but not continuing from the hub
> to the second spoke.....
>
> R2#sh ip rou 192.168.1.3
> Routing entry for 192.168.1.0/24
> Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
> Redistributing via eigrp 100
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * directly connected, via Serial0/0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> I may be missing something. Sorry for hitting on some of the more basic
> things.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
>
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <mailto: dschulz@dpsciences.com >
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:23 ART