Routing help needed

Unanswered Question
Mar 2nd, 2007

Hey,

I need to make a RDP connection to a server on a client site.

All I have done is created a simple ptp connection from my site to the remote.

On the other site, I have been given the details to configure the Fe port with as well as the gateway.

1721 Router at Client site:

Ethernet IP ? 172.16.112.3

Mask ? 255.255.252.0

Gateway ? 172.16.112.1

Server:

IP ? 172.16.113.2

What would the route statement be on my router to connect to the server on the remote site? There are no routing protocols, only making use of static routes

The client has asked me to add a route statement of route 172.16.108.0 255.255.252.0 serial2/0:2

This is probably a simple thing and something I should know but cannot figure it out.

What would the route statement be on my site router. What would the route statement be that I add on to the remote site router?

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
devang_etcom Fri, 03/02/2007 - 12:24

hi

if you dont mind then will you clearly specify your side and clinet side ip addressing... and exact problem...

regards

Devang

Richard Burts Fri, 03/02/2007 - 12:42

Brad

There are some things about your situation that we do not know and that would impact how to configure the routing. You talk about a remote site but do not tell us anything about the connectivity to the remote site. Is the connection to the remote site over a private point to point connection? Is it over the Internet? Is it something else? You do not tell us if you will be tunneling traffic to get to the remote site, or just straight routing to the remote site, or what?

If you give us some more detail, we would be able to give you better answers.

HTH

Rick

bradlesliect Sat, 03/03/2007 - 07:37

Hey Rick,

created a ptp with private addresses.

My side 192.168.225.249 /32

Client side 192.168.225.250 /32

I configured 192.168.225.250 on the serial interface on the client side. The ptp is up and i can ping across the line.

I have been given 172.16.112.3 as an IP to assign to the Fe on the router at the client side and 172.16.112.1 as the gateway address.

The server IP is 172.16.113.2.This server is behind the Fe on the client's network.

Using straightforward static routing, I need to connect to that server from my network via RDP.

The client's suggested I add a route statement of ip route 172.16.108.0 /22 on my router pointing down the ptp to the client side.

This has been done. I can ping the ptp, the ethernet addie but not the GW or the server. What am I missing?

To me its pretty simple straightforward routing but I cant get it to work.

Is this enough info?

Richard Burts Sat, 03/03/2007 - 10:40

Brad

There are still some things that I do not understand. In particular you say that you have 2 /32 addresses (My side 192.168.225.249 /32 Client side 192.168.225.250 /32) but then you talk about configuring 192.168.225.250 on the serial interface on the client side. Am I correct in assuming that the addresses are really /30 and not /32?

If you can ping the client router ethernet but can not ping the gateway or the server, then it suggests that the problem is that the gateway and the server do not have a route back to you. Can you check on that? There might be some other issues, but this is the first one to check (most likely to be the problem).

HTH

Rick

bradlesliect Sat, 03/03/2007 - 14:05

Apologies for confusion rick. It is a /30 address scheme.

249 is on the serial int on my router and 250 on the client router.

Also on the client router is the Fe address 172.16.112.3 255.255.252.0.

I can ping the ptp(192.168.225.250) and Fe(172.16.112.3)on client router from my router(which has the .249 interface created on it) but cannot ping the gateway(172.16.112.1) or the server(172.16.113.2) on the client side from my router.

On my router I have added:

ip route 172.16.108.0 255.255.252.0 192.168.225.249

Is this route statement correct?

According to the client this should give me access to the server. Should I not add the same route statement on the client router but this one pointing down the gateway address?

eg. ip route 172.16.108.0 255.255.252.0 172.16.112.1

or should I have ip route 172.16.108.0 255.255.252.0 172.16.112.3

Basicall, I configured the client's router but all he gave me was the address details for the Fe, the server IP address and the default gateway address.

The ptp address I setup myself as the client could not decide. I also added a default route statement on the client router of ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 s0

Richard Burts Sat, 03/03/2007 - 17:19

Brad

There are a couple of things that I believe are problems with the static route that you describe:

- ip route 172.16.108.0 255.255.252.0 would cover destination addresses 172.16.108.1 through 172.16.111.254.

But the addresses that you are trying to get to are 172.16.113.x. I believe that the route should be :

ip route 172.16.112.0 255.255.252.0

- in the static route that you describe the next hop address specified is 192.168.225.249. But that is the address of the interface on your router. The next hop address should be the interface on the client router (192.168.225.250).

As I said I believe that anything that deals with 172.16.108.0 255.255.252.0 is a mistake whether it is on the client router or on your router.

And you certainly do not need on the client router any static route for 172.16.112.0 255.255.252.0 since that is the connected interface on the client router.

As I said, I believe that the crucial issue is whether the gateway and the server have a route back to your addresses. Can you find out and tell us whether the gateway and the server have routes back to you?

HTH

Rick

bradlesliect Sun, 03/04/2007 - 07:01

Rick,

This route statement i explained to the client would not work. I wanted to add the statement of ip route 172.16.112.0 255.255.252.0

ip route 172.16.112.0 255.255.252.0 192.168.225.249....you say is not correct? This is the IP of the interface on my router that the client connects to. Don't you point any networks to the client network down that interface?

Re, add a static on the client side, thanks for clearing that up. I have added a default route on the client router of ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial0 - should this not sort out connectivity back to my network from the client?

Brad

Richard Burts Sun, 03/04/2007 - 13:54

Brad

When you configure a static route and specify the next hop address (instead of specify the outbound interface) you use the IP address of the remote router not the address of your own router. If you want to point out the interface you could configure ip route 172.16.112.0 255.255.252.0 serial0 (or whatever interface it was).

If you were to configure the static route as you have got it with .249, then the static route is saying deliver traffic to 192.168.225.249 not through 192.168.225.249.

A default route on the client router may be helpful - or may not, depending on the topology of their network. Do they want all traffic to any unknown destination to be forwarded to you?

And what I was saying was not that the client router did not know how to route back to you, but that it looks like the gateway and/or the server do not know how to route back to you. A default route on the client router is not likely to fix that. We need to have more detail about the topology of the remote network to be sure of the best fix to this problem.

HTH

Rick

bradlesliect Sun, 03/04/2007 - 23:14

Hey Rick,

Thanks for all the info. I have added the static on my side as ip route 172.16.112.0 255.255.254.0 serial0. The reason I used 254 is because the IP is 172.16.113.X

I can ping 192.168.225.250,172.16.112.3(Fe int on the router) but not the GW(172.16.112.1)or the server(172.16.113.2)

From the router on the client side I can ping the GW(172.16.112.1) and the server(172.16.113.2)

Should he be routing something back to me?

Richard Burts Mon, 03/05/2007 - 14:26

Brad

On the client router if you ping the GW or the server and you specify the source address as the serial does the ping still work?

HTH

Rick

Actions

This Discussion