How to set up an extended LAN through a WAN

Answered Question
Apr 23rd, 2009

Hi,

I would like to make an extended LAN through a WAN without using a MPLS configuration.

SO what I am going to set look like this :

LAN 1 --------WAN ------------- LAN 2

192.168.100.0 192.168.100.0

The two LANs are using the same network addresses.

Is there any solution to make this working by using for example GRE, NAT or something else?

Best Regards,

Nicolas

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by Jon Marshall about 7 years 9 months ago

Nicolas

That link is a bit out of date as far as support goes. There are a number of feature sets for the 2811 and 3825 routers that support L2TPv3 eg. Advanced IP Services, Enterprise Services.

Have a look at Feature Navigator - http://tools.cisco.com/ITDIT/CFN/jsp/index.jsp and select by feature and you will see which versions are available for your routers.

Jon

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 3.5 (6 ratings)
Loading.
nviturat20 Thu, 04/23/2009 - 23:12

Hi Jon

Thanks you for your reply. It's really helpfull but according to the link above L2TPv3 is supported only on router Cisco 7200 and 7500 Series router.

In my project I am using only 3825 and 2811 ISR routers.

Is it still possible to set up L2TPv3?

Best Regards.

Nicolas

Correct Answer
Jon Marshall Fri, 04/24/2009 - 05:19

Nicolas

That link is a bit out of date as far as support goes. There are a number of feature sets for the 2811 and 3825 routers that support L2TPv3 eg. Advanced IP Services, Enterprise Services.

Have a look at Feature Navigator - http://tools.cisco.com/ITDIT/CFN/jsp/index.jsp and select by feature and you will see which versions are available for your routers.

Jon

nviturat20 Fri, 04/24/2009 - 07:44

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your reply, I will try with your solution.

Best Regards,

Nicolas

lamav Fri, 04/24/2009 - 08:54

Jon:

Maybe I'm just simple-minded, but doesn't L2TPv3 seem overly complex and convoluted.

Is there a simpler method?

Victor

Jon Marshall Fri, 04/24/2009 - 11:05

Victor

"Maybe I'm just simple-minded" - no comment :-)

Seriously though i just think this is the cleanest solution if you don't have an existing L2 link between sites or you don't have an MPLS network where you can utilise pseudo-wire or whatever Cisco call it. And to be honest i have never tried another way. I'm not sure whether you could bodge something together such as bridging/GRE but i would view that as just if not more complicated.

So i'm not sure there is a simpler way but others may have suggestions.

And then of course there is the question as to why is it needed in the first place. If it is a short term fix then okay but if it is a permanent solution you could ask

1) should the design not have taken this into account - maybe/maybe not as requirements so change

2) if it is permanent maybe the 2 sites should be linked via L2 rather than L3, or perhaps, budget dependent, a new L2 link could be justified in addition to the L3 link.

Jon

Edison Ortiz Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:18

So i'm not sure there is a simpler

Simpler? Nope. L2TPv3 only takes one command on each router to implement.

IRB? spit :) You will enable STP with this solution.

__

Edison.

lamav Fri, 04/24/2009 - 12:43

One command?

I read the link put out by Jon and it isnt one command. Now, Im sure there are different ways to implement the solution given its requirements, so given the O/Ps requirements, can you show us the simple, one-line config that would effectively bridge his vlan acrosss the L3 cloud?

Thanks

lamav Fri, 04/24/2009 - 14:16

One command?

pseudowire-class L2

encapsulation l2tpv3

ip local interface FastEthernet0/1

xconnect 192.168.13.1 1 pw-class L2

This is one command?

I see 4, my friend. Do I need to call the Count from Sesame Street to help you with this?? "WON, TWO, TREE, FOR, FIFE...!" ;-)

Thanks, Edison.

Victor

Edison Ortiz Fri, 04/24/2009 - 14:23

Victor,

If you read again my last post, I explained you only need one with ATOM (that's one I use the most these days) and the reason you need the pw-class in L2TPv3 is due to the local interface where you source the xconnect.

__

Edison.

lamav Fri, 04/24/2009 - 14:39

Edison, I'm just teasing you, man...giving you a little taste of your own sarcasm ;-)

Seriously, thanks for the config.

Victor

Jon Marshall Fri, 04/24/2009 - 14:44

"giving you a little taste of your own sarcasm ;-)"

Edison, sarcastic, surely not :-)

Hi Experts.

This is Raja. Im a baby to this field and planning to start a business which is gonna support a application through online, I want to do a network set up for the communication.Its gonna be a 10 node small business.where i want to manage the LAN connection for internet and also the tunneling. can some one suggest me which series of switch , router and firewall will work out my set up. waiting for you experts.. thanks in advance..

Actions

This Discussion