|
|
| larkspur 2003-10-01, 1:56 pm |
| Router A has
s0- frame relay to Corp
s1 - not used
e0 - internal network(lan)
e1 - external network (other companys lan)
What I want to do is stop E1 traffic from using the default route(s0)to go back. I want to do this with out having to add routes every time. There could be several different networks coming through E1 for resources on e0. I want them to go back out e1. I looked at RIP and don't think it will work. Any ideas?
tia | |
| Demijohn 2003-10-01, 4:37 pm |
| If your default route is through s0, then you will need to have a route defined for each network you want to access via e1. These will need to be defined statically, or via some dynamic routing protocol, it doesn’t matter much which one. If you don’t know a priori what networks you’re going to want to talk to, static routes are out, and you’ll have to use a dynamic routing protocol. RIP is one possibility.
Of course, that means you will need to work with the network administrator of the next hop router on e1. Dare I assume that both you and this other network administrator work for the same company? | |
| larkspur 2003-10-01, 4:51 pm |
| No, we work for different companys.
So if I use rip to route info back out e1 dynamically i will still need to add the network. I am trying to find something that will route traffic back to the int that it came in on less the network. I was reading up on route maps and policies but it appears that I will still have to add networks. does this make sense? | |
| Demijohn 2003-10-01, 5:06 pm |
| If you’re going to do this without static routes, you need to run the same dynamic routing protocol as the other company’s router, and exchange routing information with it. This requires a certain level of trust and a very liberal company security policy.
If you're both using RIP, you should be able to learn the routes and networks from the other router. | |
| larkspur 2003-10-01, 5:20 pm |
| gotcha!! I had to reread about rip. your right this should work just fine. thanks | |
| Demijohn 2003-10-01, 5:45 pm |
| Glad I could help | |
| edmonds_robert 2003-10-01, 11:17 pm |
| Why not use a protocol that scales better, like EIGRP? That way, if your network grows beyond what you envision today, you don't have to rebuild the entire network. And, EIGRP converges MUCH faster than RIP. If the other companies insist on RIP, you can always run both, and just use RIP on the interface that connects to them and control your routing updates via a distribute list. | |
| darthfeces 2003-10-01, 11:19 pm |
| at an absolute minnimum ripv2,eigrp,ospf
you didn't say what you're currently running.
dynamic routing really just learns about networks and associates them with an interface to forward packets to. it then dynamicly adjusts to the network topology.
sometimes to achieve the desired result you have to use policy routing (which is really just a glorified form of static routing)
and no ... you do not have to be forced to run the same routing protocol as them.
that is why we have route Redistribution.
but, a redistibuting router has to run BOTH
protocols. yours and his ...
REDIST
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y21F41216
POLICY
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L28F32216 | |
| Demijohn 2003-10-02, 10:14 am |
| Of course EIGRP scales better and converges faster than RIP, but it's not really a subject for a CCNA level discussion.
Darth is right, I stand corrected. You don't have to run the same routing protocol as the other guy, but he has to run the same protocol as you if he's going to redistribute routes to you, a very fine distinction. | |
| edmonds_robert 2003-10-02, 2:36 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Demijohn
Of course EIGRP scales better and converges faster than RIP, but it's not really a subject for a CCNA level discussion.
Maybe, but I'm going to give the best answer I know how, regardless of the level. Besides EIGRP is not that difficult to implement. A little light reading on Cisco's website or one of the many books available and you're up and running in no time. | |
| Yankee 2003-10-03, 5:28 am |
| Darth is always right!
I don't care what level this discussion starts at, the proper advice should still be given.
Small networks almost always become much bigger networks, so proper design in the beginning saves many headaches in the future. Drop the thought of RIP and focus on EIGRP or OSPF. I prefer EIGRP only because I am much more familiar with it.
Yankee | |
| darthfeces 2003-10-03, 10:30 am |
| well, not always ...... i haven't been humbled by the lab yet ....
though i have to re-take the written and i'll be taking a boot camp by
brian dennis and brian mcgahan from
ipexpert and ciscoexpert, who broke off and formed their own company.
http://www.internetworkexpert.com
good prices too since they are just starting out.
would you mind telling my boss that when i ask for a raise ??? | |
| Demijohn 2003-10-03, 10:44 am |
| I certainly wasn't advocating the use of RIP over EIGRP, however, the original post expressed the opinion that RIP wouldn't work, which is wrong.
Without more information than is given, it is imposssible to be sure if EIGRP a good choice. Is the other router on the e1 even a Cisco product? If it isn't, you can forget all that proprietary stuff. What's the load on the route processor? There's more overhead when using EIGRP and other sophisticated routing protocols. Make sure you have enough processing horsepower, memory, etc.
More sophisticated technology is not always the correct answer. RIP may be simple and limited, but virtually every vendor supports it. Good design includes more than technology. Business constraints, (budget, staff, training, policies, etc) and other factors have to be considered. A sophisticated routing protocol, poorly implemented by a novice designer won't necessarily yield a superior design. | |
| Yankee 2003-10-04, 10:44 am |
| Purrty good post there, Demijohn!
I realize EIGRP is Cisco's own which is why I included OSPF as an alternative.
I still stand by my point about proper design from the beginning being an absolute necessity. We have a fully owned subsidiary company that started with RIP and then grew and grew. Now they are faced with a major redesign problem. Do it right from the start and you'll be a much happier tech in the future 
Yankee | |
| larkspur 2003-10-04, 6:19 pm |
| Well, that is why I can not give more info.
Giving the info i have looked at so far I am wondering if changing the default route to the e1 ip would not be a bad idea.
Example:
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 159.72.45.62
192.168.14.0 255.255.255.224 192.168.16.2
something to that affect.
When the traffic from my network 192.168.14.X
hits the route table it will look through it
See the next hop address and go through it
Does this make for a possible solution?
Right I am getting the impression that the other company might not work with us.
If needed I can put a diagram out here?
I appreciate everyone's input. I totaly understand the importance of network design
and that is partly why i posted here. | |
| Yankee 2003-10-05, 6:44 am |
| I don't know what is on the other side of S0. If you get to the internet that way or even a variety of corporate networks, then adding a default route to the ethernet will kill your traffic in that direction.
Is the corporate router on the other side of S0 running a routing protocol? Is the other company planning to share routes with you? If not and all they need to reach is one network on your side they will probably just add a static. Then it will be up to you to make sure your side knows how to get back to them, so before that decision can be made, we need to know more about what you reach on the other side of S0.
Yankee | |
| larkspur 2003-10-05, 11:18 am |
| s0 is a frame relay circuit back to corp. Internet traffic and e-mail use this the most, some DB querys, etc.As for default route back to corp it is a proxy. The default route is the last resort. So if I change the default route to point out E1 ip add than all traffic destin for that network will go out and all traffic from intrenal lan will go the S0 int. So if they tell us to go fly a kite with Dynamic routing protocols we can still route thier traffic back to them. Does this make sense? | |
| Demijohn 2003-10-06, 9:16 am |
| I don’t think you’ll want to change your default route to go out through Company X via e1. Are they going to willingly act as a transit network for you, and pass all your traffic unfiltered by their corporate policies? Do you expect that email and other global services are going to continue unaffected? Are you planning on installing a firewall out on e1 between you and company X, or configuring an IOS firewall on your router?
I’m not sure what problem you’re trying to solve. Are you actually trying to connect to random external networks via the Company X network? Does Company X have a vast collection of noncontiguous internal network segments that defy all attempts at route summarization? Are you trying to get around some restriction of your own corporate policy? None of these sound very attractive.
What exactly is the problem. | |
| Yankee 2003-10-06, 4:18 pm |
| Sorry Larkspur, but from what you say your idea will kill your internet destined traffic at bare mininimum and likely your corporate traffic too. Default route means any traffic whose network is not in the routing table will go that way, so it will be a terrible decison to send that out the ethernet. You and whomever controls the corporate router need to discuss this and you may find you need outside help.
Yankee | |
| larkspur 2003-10-09, 10:28 am |
| Well we decided go another route. instead of routing the incoming traffic to a resource\app we will publish the app with citrix and not have to deal with the routing issue at all.
i learned alot from everyone who responded to this post, thanks. next time i post something like this i will put it in the correct forum!!! | |
| darthfeces 2003-10-09, 10:39 am |
| sometimes the solution is not always the more complex one.
working on ccie i'm learning that myself. | |
| Yankee 2003-10-10, 4:55 am |
| I call the complicated solutions "over engineering"
Yankee |
|
|
|