|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > August 2002 > newby router question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
newby router question
|
|
| sllv521@aol.com 2002-08-26, 3:28 pm |
| Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
I did a show ip route and I get
10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
*.*.1.0)
I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
ping each other without a routing protocol.
Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
nothing changes?
| |
|
| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 8/26/02, 3:40:36 PM, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521@aol.com) wrote regardin=
g=20
newby router question:
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for=
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to=
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
Make one router 10.100.1.1 and the other 10.100.1.2
You have each router on a different network, this will put them on the=20
same network.
Lance
| |
| Jonathan 2002-08-26, 3:28 pm |
|
<sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:840f0902.0208261140.2c2878d9@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
Ok, this one is pretty simple..
You have two ethernet interfaces, directly connected to one another... But
you don't have a route between them.
10.100.1.0/24
and
10.100.2.0/24
are on separate networks, and require a route between them that they both
know about.
At the moment, each router knows about its directly connected network
(10.100.1.0 and 10.110.2.0 respectively)...
But, when you ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1, the router looks for a route
to the 10.100.2.0 network and has no idea where it is... since no DG is set,
it just drops the packets.
Two ways to fix this:
One, put both routers on the same subnet.
Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to both
networks.
Jonathan
| |
| sllv521 2002-08-26, 3:28 pm |
| >
>Two ways to fix this:
>One, put both routers on the same subnet.
>Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to both
>networks.
I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having routers
on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each other
when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think they would
know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make sense
| |
| Jonathan 2002-08-26, 4:28 pm |
|
<sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:840f0902.0208261140.2c2878d9@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
Ok, this one is pretty simple..
You have two ethernet interfaces, directly connected to one another... But
you don't have a route between them.
10.100.1.0/24
and
10.100.2.0/24
are on separate networks, and require a route between them that they both
know about.
At the moment, each router knows about its directly connected network
(10.100.1.0 and 10.110.2.0 respectively)...
But, when you ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1, the router looks for a route
to the 10.100.2.0 network and has no idea where it is... since no DG is set,
it just drops the packets.
Two ways to fix this:
One, put both routers on the same subnet.
Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to both
networks.
Jonathan
| |
| sllv521 2002-08-26, 4:28 pm |
| >
>Two ways to fix this:
>One, put both routers on the same subnet.
>Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to both
>networks.
I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having routers
on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each other
when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think they would
know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make sense
| |
|
| What he means is that the interfaces connecting the routers together have to
be on the same subnet ie R1 e0-10.10.1.1 and R2 e0-10.10.1.2.
HTH
James
"sllv521" <sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826170414.00746.00003065@mb-cf.aol.com...
> >
> >Two ways to fix this:
> >One, put both routers on the same subnet.
> >Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to
both
> >networks.
>
> I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having
routers
> on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each
other
> when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think they
would
> know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
>
> I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make
sense
| |
| Colin Bailey 2002-08-26, 4:28 pm |
| On 26 Aug 2002 12:40:36 -0700, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521@aol.com)
wrote:
E0 (1 and 2) need to reside on the same subnet, if they are back to
backed.
>Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
>port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
>I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
>*.*.1.0)
>I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
>doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
>is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
>ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
>Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
>nothing changes?
---------------------
Colin Bailey
colin@sysol.demon.co.uk
MS messenger account - colinbailey_uk@hotmail.com
Mobile: 07XXX XXXXXX
| |
|
| Hi,
The way the router should be working is this scenario.
R1 e0 = 192.168.1.1 then this connects to a group of PC's
s0 = 172.168.0.1 this connects to a WAN connect ie frame relay (You can
simulate this with a serial cross over cable)
R2 s1 = 172.168.0.2 this connects to the WAN interface on the R1 router
which is connecting them.
e0 = 192.168.2.1 then this goes to another group of PC's which are on
different network to the PC's on R1 but they can talk using the frame relay
connection.
The answer to all of the is that routers can only talk to other router on
the same network but they can route information from different ports or
routers.
This is not the best answer but you should get the picture.
Thanks
Chris
"James" <J@mes.com> wrote in message
news:IUwa9.5505$2E6.2281644@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> What he means is that the interfaces connecting the routers together have
to
> be on the same subnet ie R1 e0-10.10.1.1 and R2 e0-10.10.1.2.
>
> HTH
>
> James
> "sllv521" <sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020826170414.00746.00003065@mb-cf.aol.com...
> > >
> > >Two ways to fix this:
> > >One, put both routers on the same subnet.
> > >Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to
> both
> > >networks.
> >
> > I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having
> routers
> > on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each
> other
> > when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think they
> would
> > know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
> >
> > I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make
> sense
>
>
| |
|
| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 8/26/02, 5:04:14 PM, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521) wrote regarding Re:=20
newby router question:
> I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having=
=20
routers
> on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see eac=
h=20
other
> when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think the=
y=20
would
> know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
> I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt mak=
e=20
sense
Let's say router A is a core router and router B is at the remote site. =
=20
Router A has a serial interface (10.1.250.1 255.255.255.252) connecting =
to a serial interface of router B (10.1.250.2 255.255.255.252). The=20
Ethernet interface on router B (10.1.45.1 255.255.255.0) will be on a=20
different network. Router A will know that if it wants to get to=20
10.1.45.0 that it will need to use 10.1.250.0 in order to get there. Th=
e=20
serial links are on the same network which allows the Ethernet interface=
=20
to be able to be reached.
Lance
| |
|
| What he means is that the interfaces connecting the routers together have to
be on the same subnet ie R1 e0-10.10.1.1 and R2 e0-10.10.1.2.
HTH
James
"sllv521" <sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826170414.00746.00003065@mb-cf.aol.com...
> >
> >Two ways to fix this:
> >One, put both routers on the same subnet.
> >Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to
both
> >networks.
>
> I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having
routers
> on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each
other
> when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think they
would
> know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
>
> I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make
sense
| |
| Colin Bailey 2002-08-26, 5:28 pm |
| On 26 Aug 2002 12:40:36 -0700, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521@aol.com)
wrote:
E0 (1 and 2) need to reside on the same subnet, if they are back to
backed.
>Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
>port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
>I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
>*.*.1.0)
>I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
>doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
>is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
>ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
>Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
>nothing changes?
---------------------
Colin Bailey
colin@sysol.demon.co.uk
MS messenger account - colinbailey_uk@hotmail.com
Mobile: 07XXX XXXXXX
| |
|
| Hi,
The way the router should be working is this scenario.
R1 e0 = 192.168.1.1 then this connects to a group of PC's
s0 = 172.168.0.1 this connects to a WAN connect ie frame relay (You can
simulate this with a serial cross over cable)
R2 s1 = 172.168.0.2 this connects to the WAN interface on the R1 router
which is connecting them.
e0 = 192.168.2.1 then this goes to another group of PC's which are on
different network to the PC's on R1 but they can talk using the frame relay
connection.
The answer to all of the is that routers can only talk to other router on
the same network but they can route information from different ports or
routers.
This is not the best answer but you should get the picture.
Thanks
Chris
"James" <J@mes.com> wrote in message
news:IUwa9.5505$2E6.2281644@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> What he means is that the interfaces connecting the routers together have
to
> be on the same subnet ie R1 e0-10.10.1.1 and R2 e0-10.10.1.2.
>
> HTH
>
> James
> "sllv521" <sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020826170414.00746.00003065@mb-cf.aol.com...
> > >
> > >Two ways to fix this:
> > >One, put both routers on the same subnet.
> > >Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to
> both
> > >networks.
> >
> > I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having
> routers
> > on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each
> other
> > when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think they
> would
> > know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
> >
> > I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make
> sense
>
>
| |
|
| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 8/26/02, 5:04:14 PM, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521) wrote regarding Re:=20
newby router question:
> I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having=
=20
routers
> on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see eac=
h=20
other
> when rip is enabled? They are directly connected so I would think the=
y=20
would
> know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
> I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt mak=
e=20
sense
Let's say router A is a core router and router B is at the remote site. =
=20
Router A has a serial interface (10.1.250.1 255.255.255.252) connecting =
to a serial interface of router B (10.1.250.2 255.255.255.252). The=20
Ethernet interface on router B (10.1.45.1 255.255.255.0) will be on a=20
different network. Router A will know that if it wants to get to=20
10.1.45.0 that it will need to use 10.1.250.0 in order to get there. Th=
e=20
serial links are on the same network which allows the Ethernet interface=
=20
to be able to be reached.
Lance
| |
|
| These interfaces are on different subnets. You would have to have a router
in between these to to be able to route traffic. To fix this change the
subnet mask to /16 or change the IP addresses to be in the same subnet.
They are directly connected, RIP or any other routing protocol will not
change their connectivity.
-Jeff
<sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:840f0902.0208261140.2c2878d9@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
| |
|
| These interfaces are on different subnets. You would have to have a router
in between these to to be able to route traffic. To fix this change the
subnet mask to /16 or change the IP addresses to be in the same subnet.
They are directly connected, RIP or any other routing protocol will not
change their connectivity.
-Jeff
<sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:840f0902.0208261140.2c2878d9@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
| |
|
| On 26 Aug 2002 12:40:36 -0700, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521@aol.com)
wrote:
>Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
>port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
>I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
>*.*.1.0)
Not sure if you've done this, but besides putting both interfaces into
the same subnet (make the second one 10.100.1.2), also perform a no
shutdown execution in each e0 interface :
Router1#conf term
Router1(conf)#int e0
Router1(conf-if)#ip address 10.100.1.1 255.255.255.0
Router1(conf-if)#no shutdown
^Z
Router1#copy run start
Dan
| |
|
| On 26 Aug 2002 12:40:36 -0700, sllv521@aol.com (sllv521@aol.com)
wrote:
>Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
>port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
>I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
>*.*.1.0)
Not sure if you've done this, but besides putting both interfaces into
the same subnet (make the second one 10.100.1.2), also perform a no
shutdown execution in each e0 interface :
Router1#conf term
Router1(conf)#int e0
Router1(conf-if)#ip address 10.100.1.1 255.255.255.0
Router1(conf-if)#no shutdown
^Z
Router1#copy run start
Dan
| |
| Jonathan 2002-08-26, 11:28 pm |
|
"sllv521" <sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826170414.00746.00003065@mb-cf.aol.com...
> >
> >Two ways to fix this:
> >One, put both routers on the same subnet.
> >Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to
both
> >networks.
>
> I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having
routers
> on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each
other
> when rip is enabled?
Because magic won't be implemented until IOS 12.3...
Actually, the reason is pretty simple...
Routers are really stupid. They only know how to get to places that they
know about... and they don't know about much...
There are four ways a router can know about a route:
Directly Connected.
A routing protocol.
Statically mapped.
Default Gateway
Think of it as paths... you need one path to get to another... each router
has paths only to its directly connected networks... To get from Network A
to Network B, you need to have some place where Nets A and B both reside...
on a single router...
e.g.
RTRA RTRB
RTRC
Net 1 and 2 Net 2 and 3
Net 3 and 4
To get from Net 1 to Net 4, you would hop onto Net 2, then Net 3
> They are directly connected so I would think they would
> know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
>
They are not directly connected in your example... They are physically
connected (layer 1), They are data connected (layer 2), but not Network
connected (Layer 3)...
> I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make
sense
| |
| Jonathan 2002-08-27, 12:29 am |
|
"sllv521" <sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020826170414.00746.00003065@mb-cf.aol.com...
> >
> >Two ways to fix this:
> >One, put both routers on the same subnet.
> >Two, get a third router with two interfaces on it that has a route to
both
> >networks.
>
> I thought a router was supposed to connect different networks? Having
routers
> on the same subnet seems to defeat the purpose. Why cant they see each
other
> when rip is enabled?
Because magic won't be implemented until IOS 12.3...
Actually, the reason is pretty simple...
Routers are really stupid. They only know how to get to places that they
know about... and they don't know about much...
There are four ways a router can know about a route:
Directly Connected.
A routing protocol.
Statically mapped.
Default Gateway
Think of it as paths... you need one path to get to another... each router
has paths only to its directly connected networks... To get from Network A
to Network B, you need to have some place where Nets A and B both reside...
on a single router...
e.g.
RTRA RTRB
RTRC
Net 1 and 2 Net 2 and 3
Net 3 and 4
To get from Net 1 to Net 4, you would hop onto Net 2, then Net 3
> They are directly connected so I would think they would
> know how to get to each other since they are directly connected.
>
They are not directly connected in your example... They are physically
connected (layer 1), They are data connected (layer 2), but not Network
connected (Layer 3)...
> I know I am wrong, I am just trying to understand, it still doesnt make
sense
| |
| Ken Hall 2002-08-27, 1:29 am |
| I know this question has been beaten to death by everyone, and I hope you
understand why, and you may/may not already know this...
But since you prefaced the subject as 'newby router question' - I felt I
should add this bit, since no one else mentioned it...
You will also need to use a crossover cable since you are trying to directly
connect two interfaces.
Have fun learning,
Ken
<sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:840f0902.0208261140.2c2878d9@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
| |
| Ken Hall 2002-08-27, 2:28 am |
| I know this question has been beaten to death by everyone, and I hope you
understand why, and you may/may not already know this...
But since you prefaced the subject as 'newby router question' - I felt I
should add this bit, since no one else mentioned it...
You will also need to use a crossover cable since you are trying to directly
connect two interfaces.
Have fun learning,
Ken
<sllv521@aol.com> wrote in message
news:840f0902.0208261140.2c2878d9@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
| |
|
| "Ken Hall" <kenmhall1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eBC2dmZTCHA.2300@cpimsnntpa03...
> You will also need to use a crossover cable since you are trying to
directly
> connect two interfaces.
> Have fun learning,
> Ken
If you read his post he said this
"A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line is up."
Lance
| |
|
| "Ken Hall" <kenmhall1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eBC2dmZTCHA.2300@cpimsnntpa03...
> You will also need to use a crossover cable since you are trying to
directly
> connect two interfaces.
> Have fun learning,
> Ken
If you read his post he said this
"A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line is up."
Lance
| |
| Ken Hall 2002-08-28, 3:42 am |
| AND as I said in my post:
"..and you may/may not already know this..."
Don't critique someone for trying to be helpful - unless it is obviously
erroneous information. So please crawl back under your rock.
How do you know that someone else wasn't having the same problem, read that
post, went 'DOH!', and now has a functional connection?
"Lance" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news 6Ga9.45865$ja.9029686@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> "Ken Hall" <kenmhall1@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eBC2dmZTCHA.2300@cpimsnntpa03...
> > You will also need to use a crossover cable since you are trying to
> directly
> > connect two interfaces.
> > Have fun learning,
> > Ken
>
> If you read his post he said this
> "A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line is up."
>
> Lance
>
>
| |
| Ken Hall 2002-08-28, 4:41 am |
| AND as I said in my post:
"..and you may/may not already know this..."
Don't critique someone for trying to be helpful - unless it is obviously
erroneous information. So please crawl back under your rock.
How do you know that someone else wasn't having the same problem, read that
post, went 'DOH!', and now has a functional connection?
"Lance" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news6Ga9.45865$ja.9029686@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> "Ken Hall" <kenmhall1@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eBC2dmZTCHA.2300@cpimsnntpa03...
> > You will also need to use a crossover cable since you are trying to
> directly
> > connect two interfaces.
> > Have fun learning,
> > Ken
>
> If you read his post he said this
> "A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line is up."
>
> Lance
>
>
| |
| sllv521 2002-08-29, 3:29 am |
| Can I have two routers, e0 with 254 hosts, r2 e0 with 254 hosts. And have the
ip addresses as 10.100.1.1 255.255.254.0
ip address 10.100.2.1 255.255.254.0
| |
| Alois Heilmaier 2002-08-29, 3:29 am |
| Hi,
First, I do not watch your route for Network 10.100.1.0. I can not believe
that this route is in your routing table on the same router.
Second If you really want to get connectivity you can also create
secondary ip addresses on your interfaces
e.g.
int eth x
ip address 10.100.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip address 10.100.2.2 255.255.255.0 secondary
on the other router
int eth x
ip address 10.100.1.2 255.255.255.0
ip address 10.100.2.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
so you can connect Endsystems with ip prefix 10.100.2.x /24 and 10.100.1.x
/24 on your LAN.
bye
"sllv521@aol.com" schrieb:
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
| |
| sllv521 2002-08-29, 4:28 am |
| Can I have two routers, e0 with 254 hosts, r2 e0 with 254 hosts. And have the
ip addresses as 10.100.1.1 255.255.254.0
ip address 10.100.2.1 255.255.254.0
| |
| Alois Heilmaier 2002-08-29, 4:28 am |
| Hi,
First, I do not watch your route for Network 10.100.1.0. I can not believe
that this route is in your routing table on the same router.
Second If you really want to get connectivity you can also create
secondary ip addresses on your interfaces
e.g.
int eth x
ip address 10.100.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip address 10.100.2.2 255.255.255.0 secondary
on the other router
int eth x
ip address 10.100.1.2 255.255.255.0
ip address 10.100.2.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
so you can connect Endsystems with ip prefix 10.100.2.x /24 and 10.100.1.x
/24 on your LAN.
bye
"sllv521@aol.com" schrieb:
> Hi, I have two 2500's, I have connected them together through the e0
> port. ROuter 1 is 10.100.1.1 /24 and router 2 is 10.100.2.1 /24
> I did a show ip route and I get
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> C 10.100.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 (and the same for
> *.*.1.0)
> I try to ping 10.100.2.1 from 10.100.1.1 and I cant ping. What am I
> doing wrong? A show int e0 shows that the ports are up and the line
> is up. Since they are directly connected I figured I would be able to
> ping each other without a routing protocol.
>
> Since that didnot work, I added router rip and network 10.0.0.0 and
> nothing changes?
| |
| george 2002-08-29, 5:28 pm |
| sllv521@aol.com (sllv521) wrote in message news:<20020829023045.19403.00004297@mb-mg.aol.com>...
> Can I have two routers, e0 with 254 hosts, r2 e0 with 254 hosts. And have the
> ip addresses as 10.100.1.1 255.255.254.0
> ip address 10.100.2.1 255.255.254.0
Oops - right idea, but watch your masks!
10.100.1.1 /23 defines a address space with a base address of
10.100.0.0 and a broadcast address of 10.100.1.255
10.100.2.1 / 23 defines an address space with a base address of
10.100.2.0 and a broadcast address of 10.100.3.255
So you haven't opened the mask up enough to put 10.100.1.1 and
10.100.2.1 into the same address space. If you use 10.100.1.1 / 22
and 10.100.2.1 /22 (i.e, a 255.255.252.0 mask), then both cases define
an address space with a base address of 10.100.0.0 and a broadcast
address of 10.100.3.255, and the addresses 10.10.1.1 and 10.100.2.1
will be in the same local network.
Another thing you could do is put 10.100.2.1 on one router and
10.100.3.1 on the second router, using a 255.255.254.0 mask on both.
It's good practice to use the same mask on your local hosts that you
use on your router interfaces. It's fine to give half of your local
hosts one gateway and the other half a different gateway, but it only
makes sense if those gateways are each a good first hop to a
destination you expect traffic to be going to.
How big you want to make your broadcast domain is another
consideration. A 23 bit mask puts up to 510 nodes on a local network;
a 22 bit mask allows up to 1022.
p.s. Go to www.ietf.org and look up rfc 791, 'Internet Protocol'.
It's a spec, but it's short, concise, and a great primer. (You may
also want to learn a bit about the author, Steve Deering - just look
up his name on google.)
| |
| george 2002-08-29, 6:28 pm |
| sllv521@aol.com (sllv521) wrote in message news:<20020829023045.19403.00004297@mb-mg.aol.com>...
> Can I have two routers, e0 with 254 hosts, r2 e0 with 254 hosts. And have the
> ip addresses as 10.100.1.1 255.255.254.0
> ip address 10.100.2.1 255.255.254.0
Oops - right idea, but watch your masks!
10.100.1.1 /23 defines a address space with a base address of
10.100.0.0 and a broadcast address of 10.100.1.255
10.100.2.1 / 23 defines an address space with a base address of
10.100.2.0 and a broadcast address of 10.100.3.255
So you haven't opened the mask up enough to put 10.100.1.1 and
10.100.2.1 into the same address space. If you use 10.100.1.1 / 22
and 10.100.2.1 /22 (i.e, a 255.255.252.0 mask), then both cases define
an address space with a base address of 10.100.0.0 and a broadcast
address of 10.100.3.255, and the addresses 10.10.1.1 and 10.100.2.1
will be in the same local network.
Another thing you could do is put 10.100.2.1 on one router and
10.100.3.1 on the second router, using a 255.255.254.0 mask on both.
It's good practice to use the same mask on your local hosts that you
use on your router interfaces. It's fine to give half of your local
hosts one gateway and the other half a different gateway, but it only
makes sense if those gateways are each a good first hop to a
destination you expect traffic to be going to.
How big you want to make your broadcast domain is another
consideration. A 23 bit mask puts up to 510 nodes on a local network;
a 22 bit mask allows up to 1022.
p.s. Go to www.ietf.org and look up rfc 791, 'Internet Protocol'.
It's a spec, but it's short, concise, and a great primer. (You may
also want to learn a bit about the author, Steve Deering - just look
up his name on google.)
|
|
|
|
|