Solved: Re: t1 multilink ppp routing - Page 2

networksavvy · ‎01-31-2007

I have an adtran 4205 and a cisco 1800 at two offices. I have 2 t1's at each site installed for load balancing, etc dedicated to network traffic only. I used multilink ppp and have the ppp1 interface on each router up, and both t1's on each router showing up. all is fine. for the ppp 1 interfaces on each router, I used 192.168.1 255.255.255.252 and 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252 respectively. All seems fine there. I can ping and telnet back and forth using those addresses. For the main office router, the important lan range is 10.1.3.x and 10.1.5.x 255.255.0.0 and at the remote site 10.2.4.1 255.255.255.0 Both sides have a seperate firewall which holds the routes for internet traffic on a seperate connection. The main router has 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.3.20 (firwall at main site) and the remove site has 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.2.4.10 (firewall for remote site)

From REMOTE Test Router: (10.2.4.1 255.255.255.0, 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.252)

ping 10.1.3.5 source 10.2.4.1 request timed out

ping 10.1.3.5 source 192.168.1.2 success!

ping 192.168.1.1 source 10.2.4.1 request timed out

From MAIN Test Router (10.1.3.5 255.255.0.0, 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252)

ping 10.2.4.1 source 10.1.3.5 expired TTL in transit

ping 10.2.4.1 source 192.168.1.1 request timed out

ping 192.168.1.2 source 10.1.3.5 success!

Is this a static route issue? I even tried configuring the 0.0.0.0 routes as the 192.168.1.x addresses of the other routers, or even 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ppp1 and still cant talk accross to the other LAN. Any suggestions?

networksavvy · ‎01-31-2007

Yes, I did notice that earlier and corrected on the router before I unplugged. I am thinking with all my rip statements being correct, I will be good to go when I'm on site. I will definitely post an update tomorrow afte the swap to let you all know what happens. Thanks again, you have been extremely helpful. Have a great night!

Richard Burts · ‎01-31-2007

Spencer

The config that you posted does not turn off auto summarization. The design that you are using with 10.1.x.x on one side and 10.2.4.x on the other side with 192.168.1.0 in the middle is technically described as discontiguous network and with auto summarization it is an issue.

Unless you turn off auto summarization you will not be good to go when you get to the remote site.

HTH

Rick

HTH

Rick

networksavvy · ‎02-01-2007

I just made the swap. Everything is fine except for the new site pinging other branch sites. I cannot ping hosts on the remote LAN or the remote router. If I add a route on the new remote router as 10.2.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1(mains IP), I can ping the remote router from remote, but still not hosts. Does this make sense? Which routers will I have to disable autosummarization to have this work?

EDIT: Actually, just ran show ip protocols to see if it was enabled on existing remote, main, and new remote and will display results in that order. It says that auto net summarization is not in effect?

LC REMOTE

Routing protocol is "rip"

Sending updates every 30 seconds, next due in 5 seconds

Invalid after 180 seconds, hold down time is 120 seconds

Redistributing: rip

Default version control: send version 2, receive version 2

Interface Send Ver. Rec Ver.

eth 0/1 2 2

hdlc 1 2 2

Routing for networks:

10.2.0.0/16

10.1.0.0/16

Automatic network summarization is not in effect

MAIN

Routing protocol is "rip"

Sending updates every 30 seconds, next due in 18 seconds

Invalid after 180 seconds, hold down time is 120 seconds

Redistributing: rip, static, connected

Default version control: send version 2, receive version 2

Interface Send Ver. Rec Ver.

eth 0/1 2 2

eth 0/2 2 2

hdlc 2 2 2

hdlc 3 2 2

Routing for networks:

10.2.0.0/16

10.1.0.0/16

192.168.1.0/0

Automatic network summarization is not in effect

Routing protocol is "bgp 0"

NEW REMOTE

Routing protocol is "rip"

Sending updates every 30 seconds, next due in 17 seconds

Invalid after 180 seconds, hold down time is 120 seconds

Redistributing: rip

Default version control: send version 2, receive version 2

Routing for networks:

10.2.2.0/0

192.168.1.0/0

Automatic network summarization is not in effect

Routing protocol is "bgp 0"

Not sure why two of them have BGP enabled, dont think that would hurt through.

Thanks,

Spencer

devang_etcom · ‎02-01-2007

so what are the output of both side show ip route...

you are having still same IP addressing right...

devang

networksavvy · ‎02-01-2007

Sorry, got rid of the 10.2.4. and replaced it with the production of 10.2.2. for ease.

SH IP ROUTES of

NEW REMOTE 10.2.2.1, 192.168.1.2

Gateway of last resort is 10.2.2.10 to network 0.0.0.0

S 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.2.2.10, eth 0/1

S 10.1.0.0/16 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1, ppp 1

S 10.2.1.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.1.1, ppp 1

C 10.2.2.0/24 is directly connected, eth 0/1

C 192.168.1.0/30 is directly connected, ppp 1

C 192.168.1.1/32 is directly connected, ppp 1

MAIN MIDDLE 10.1.3.5, 192.168.1.1

S 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.1.3.20, eth 0/1

C 10.1.0.0/16 is directly connected, eth 0/1

R 10.2.1.0/24 [120/1] via 10.2.1.1, hdlc 2

S 10.2.2.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.1.2, ppp 1

R 10.2.3.0/24 [120/1] via 10.2.3.1, hdlc 3

C 10.2.5.0/24 is directly connected, eth 0/2

C 192.168.1.0/30 is directly connected, ppp 1

C 192.168.1.2/32 is directly connected, ppp 1

EXISTING REMOTE 10.2.1.1

Gateway of last resort is 10.1.3.5 to network 0.0.0.0

R 0.0.0.0/0 [120/1] via 10.1.3.5, hdlc 1

R 10.1.0.0/16 [120/1] via 10.1.3.5, hdlc 1

C 10.2.1.0/24 is directly connected, eth 0/1

R 10.2.2.0/24 [120/1] via 10.1.3.5, hdlc 1

R 10.2.3.0/24 [120/2] via 10.1.3.5, hdlc 1

R 10.2.5.0/24 [120/1] via 10.1.3.5, hdlc 1

R 192.168.1.0/30 [120/1] via 10.1.3.5, hdlc 1

networksavvy · ‎02-01-2007

Update: I can ping from existing remote(10.2.1 to new remote through the RIP advertisements that it learned about 10.2.2 over HDLC1 interface. I still cannot ping from 10.2.2 to 10.2.1 network even with the static route i added to send it to 192.168.1.1

devang_etcom · ‎02-01-2007

from routing table you shoud be able to ping the remote router as your main and new remote is directly connected but the problem with the remote host is ... look at your new remote host routing table there is no any information about the 10.1.3.0 (main router lan) so your routing table of the remote host need to have this entry... as you are having one main and two different remote site, your configuration is not looks to be an identical... and i think this bgp configuration from your new remote and the main side is i think not usefull...

rate the post if it helps

regards

Devang

networksavvy · ‎02-01-2007

There she goes. Looks like it took some finagling with the route I had already added. The 10.1.3.5 route that you didnt see - falls under the 10.1.0 network though I thought? It must, because it's all working!

devang_etcom · ‎02-01-2007

you you all done all site is connected with each other right you got the full reachability

regards

Devang