I have a network that's comprised of 2 non-continginous /24 (65.202.119 and 65.202.69) networks and are about to have to release these two /24's back in exchange for a contingous /20. (18.104.22.168/20). I have a few questions. I guess the best place to start is the top so here goes.
What is the best way to have subnetted /24's (and smaller subnets) behind ADDITIONAL routers that may exist on fastethernet0/0's network?
I have read documents for the last week and I still have questions. I have printed and read the following and several others:
IP Addressing and Subnetting for New Users
Configuring IP Addressing
Configuring IP Routing
Advanced Routing Technologies (Slides)
The problem I keep running into is that the examples do not use contingous IP blocks so I keep confusing myself as to how I need to do this. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Coming inbound from the net we have two .252 networks. These are configured by the upstream provider for redundant T1's and are not part of the /20.
interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
ip address 22.214.171.124 255.255.255.252
interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
ip address 126.96.36.199 255.255.255.252
Here's the network now with the /20 working but I think we need something different.
! I have tried putting just a /24 here and then having static routes for
! other /24's. It did not work....
ip address 188.8.131.52 255.255.240.0 secondary
ip address 184.108.40.206 255.255.255.0
router bgp 1234
network 220.127.116.11 mask 255.255.255.0
network 18.104.22.168 mask 255.255.255.0
! I think this is where my problem also occurs.
! See futher below...
network 22.214.171.124 mask 255.255.240.0
neighbor 126.96.36.199 remote-as 321
neighbor 188.8.131.52 remote-as 321
neighbor 184.108.40.206 route-map shadow in
neighbor 220.127.116.11 route-map shadow out
route-map shadow permit 10
set metric 10
ip route 18.104.22.168 255.255.255.0 22.214.171.124
ip route 126.96.36.199 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
! An example of trying to put a smaller subnet of the /20 here.
! It seems to be working but see further below....
ip route 188.8.131.52 255.255.248.0 184.108.40.206
This is why I think it's broken...
It shows the entire /20 on eth0. So it's doing mac address layer 2 switching rather than IP routing yes?
gw-1#sh ip route
Gateway of last resort is 220.127.116.11 to network 0.0.0.0
18.104.22.168/8 is variably subnetted, 4 subnets, 2 masks
C 22.214.171.124/30 is directly connected, Serial0/0.1
C 126.96.36.199/30 is directly connected, Serial0/1.1
S 188.8.131.52/24 [1/0] via 184.108.40.206
C 220.127.116.11/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
B* 0.0.0.0/0 [20/0] via 18.104.22.168, 2d14h
C 22.214.171.124/20 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
S 126.96.36.199/21 [1/0] via 188.8.131.52
So, should I add in the bgp router config an aggregate route with summary only to suppress the smaller routes from being announced back upstream? For example,
aggregate address 184.108.40.206 255.255.240.0 summary only
!Then list the other subnets (For example...)
network 220.127.116.11 mask 255.255.255.0
network 18.104.22.168 mask 255.255.255.0
Also, do I need a static route entry for each of these? I think I do but I just want to make sure.
In summary, my thoughts are that for each subnet I put on fastethernet0/0 and for each static route I enter I also need a network line in the router bgp config, along with an aggregate-address / summary only line for the /20 as a whole.
Thanks for the help. I currently have it working as far as the /20 being passed back upstream (according to sh ip route and sh ip bgp commands) and this agrees with what I have read. I understand that fully but it's not directly my question. Please see more below.
. I have tried using statics (for instance /24's) and a different /24 on fastethernet0/0. The result was where a machine that was behind the 2nd router could only pass packets not beyond the fastethernet network. So.. I have been considering adding some bgp configs to help...
aggregate address x.x.x.x summary-only
and several other subnets within the bgp configuration.
This is what I am trying to determine will make it work. In other words... only having static routes didn't work. Any advice you can give me I appreciate much.
Lewis my point was that you shouldn't configured the /20 on the Fa0/0 but simply a ststic route for the /20 pointing to null0. You should start by changing this piece of your configuration. You should not need to add to your BGP configuration. Try using a /24 (or whatever is needed on the Fa0/0) and use static routes to reach subnets behind Fa0/0. Also make sure that the subnets behind Fa0/0 have a default gateway pointing back at your Internet facing router.
Let me know if it helps,
Harold Ritter Sr. Technical Leader CCIE 4168 (R&S, SP) firstname.lastname@example.org México móvil: +52 1 55 8312 4915 Cisco México Paseo de la Reforma 222 Piso 19 Cuauhtémoc, Juárez Ciudad de México, 06600 México
Initially I tried a /24 on fe0/0 and other /24's as static routes failed. I made sure that I had also clear ip route * and clear arp-cache so that an old route was not causing the problem. The difference was that I did not have a /20 pointing to /dev/null.
For instance I had 22.214.171.124 255.255.255.0 configured on fe0/0 and had a static route for 126.96.36.199/24 at 188.8.131.52. This never would make it out. Before your post I was able to get it working by adding the bgp network configs including the aggregate / summary lines as well as the individual lines for the /24's.
Both ways we now have the whole /20 pointing to /dev/null with the specific routes looking good.
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3. 16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are looking for early feedback from custome...