From: Yasmin Lara (ylara@sunsetlearning.com)
Date: Sat Dec 30 2006 - 23:50:35 ART
Tested my idea and didn't work. The routers do become neighbors though
which they didn't before I added the neighbor statements, but only on
tunnel 1. The "neighbor not on common subnet" message keeps coming up.
Debug ip packet shows:
Mar 1 00:37:41.142: IP: s=172.16.2.2 (Tunnel1), d=172.16.2.1 (Tunnel1),
len 60, rcvd 3, proto=88
Mar 1 00:37:43.758: IP: s=172.16.1.2 (Tunnel1), d=172.16.1.1, len 60,
rcvd 4, proto=88
So, it looks like it doesn't matter what the SA and DA used by EIGRP
are, the router looks as the external DA and decides the packet belongs
to tunnel 1.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Yasmin Lara
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:42 AM
To: Swan, Jay; John Matus; prashant shukla
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: EIGRP_over 2-Tunnels, complains " not on common subnet".
What if you use neighbor statements under EIGRP so that it doesn't use
multicast but unicast. That way (I think) the update sent from tunnel 0
will
have tunnel 0's ip as SA and remote router tunnel 0's IP as DA.
In R2 for example, I would use
neighbor 128.1.1.2 tunnel 0
neighbor 129.1.1.100 tunnel 1
Regards,
Yasmin.
________________________________
From: nobody@groupstudy.com on behalf of Swan, Jay
Sent: Fri 12/29/2006 4:02 PM
To: John Matus; prashant shukla
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: EIGRP_over 2-Tunnels, complains " not on common subnet".
I believe you cannot have EIGRP running over two GRE tunnels that
terminate on the same loopback interfaces without this happening. I
actually tried to do this in an odd real world scenario a few years ago,
and that was the answer that came back from the TAC escalation team. We
had to create separate loopback interfaces to terminate each tunnel.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
John Matus
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:47 AM
To: prashant shukla
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: EIGRP_over 2-Tunnels, complains " not on common subnet".
try using tunnel destination of "loopback0" instead of using the ip
address of the interface.
Regards,
John D. Matus
Technical Support / PAS
Fujitsu Consulting
626-568-7716
John.Matus@tokiom.com
prashant shukla <shukla_cisco@yahoo.co.in> Sent by:
nobody@groupstudy.com
12/29/2006 06:29 AM
Please respond to
prashant shukla <shukla_cisco@yahoo.co.in>
To
ccielab@groupstudy.com
cc
Subject
EIGRP_over 2-Tunnels, complains " not on common subnet".
Gurus,
I have a simple 2 routers over a serial link.
i create 2 Tunnels between them , if i keep the "tunnel Source" and
"tunnel dest" to exactly same as Loopback 0 , Eigrp complains regarding
"neigh not on common subnet" if i keep then diff , as in 2 diff
sources/dests , its works.
I know its got to do with primary IP add space, cant feel the real
pulse
here.
config on R1:
interface Loopback0
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255
no ip directed-broadcast
no clns route-cache
!
interface Tunnel0
ip address 128.1.1.2 255.0.0.0
no ip directed-broadcast
no clns route-cache
tunnel source Loopback0
tunnel destination 2.2.2.2
!
interface Tunnel1
ip address 129.1.1.100 255.0.0.0
no ip directed-broadcast
no clns route-cache
tunnel source Loopback0
tunnel destination 2.2.2.2
!
interface Serial0/0
ip address 172.16.1.100 255.255.0.0
no ip directed-broadcast
no clns route-cache
same config at R2 too.
Shukla.
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger.
Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 07:50:40 ART