04-15-2008 05:53 PM - edited 03-03-2019 09:34 PM
I have just replaced a 2500 with a 2801 router, added wic serial module and it is connected) and 9 port ethernet switch (8 pc's static addressed connected to 9 port switch), I have entered the same config as I had on the 2500 with the exception of "router igrp 2". I cannot get to internet through any of the pc's connected. I know enough to know I know nothing. Should I be bridging the 9 port switch, instead of int fa 0/0? Do i need to enable EIGRP? I have included the config below. If anyone has any ideas as to why I cannot get to internet or even ping the router please help. Any information is greatly appreciated. The subinterface s0/2/0.1 is PPP to another remote site and I am just not sure if the bridge-grouping is right. Let me know if I should include remote config.
!version 12.4
no service pad
service tcp-keepalives-in
service tcp-keepalives-out
service timestamps debug datetime
service timestamps log datetime
service password-encryption
service udp-small-servers
service tcp-small-servers
service sequence-numbers
!
hostname option_care_clksbrg
!
boot-start-marker
boot system flash:c2801-entbasek9-mz.124-16b.bin
boot-end-marker
!
logging buffered 51200 debugging
logging console critical
!
no aaa new-model
clock timezone PCTime -5
clock summer-time PCTime date Apr 6 2003 2:00 Oct 26 2003 2:00
no ip source-route
ip cef
!
no ip bootp server
no ip domain lookup
ip domain name comprecare.local
ip host main 172.16.254.1
ip name-server 192.0.0.4
ip name-server 69.43.55.2
ip ddns update method sdm_ddns1
DDNS both
!
ipx routing 00e0.b055.c109
!
ip tcp synwait-time 10
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
description $ETH-LAN$$ETH-SW-LAUNCH$$INTF-INFO-FE 0$$ES_LAN$$FW_INSIDE$
ip address 192.0.2.254 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip route-cache flow
duplex auto
speed auto
ipx network 20
no mop enabled
bridge-group 1
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
no ip address
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip route-cache flow
duplex auto
speed auto
no mop enabled
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/0
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/1
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/2
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/3
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/4
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/5
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/6
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/7
!
interface FastEthernet0/1/8
!
interface Serial0/2/0
no ip address
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
encapsulation frame-relay
ip route-cache flow
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
!
interface Serial0/2/0.1 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.2.1 255.255.255.0
ipx network 1620
no cdp enable
frame-relay interface-dlci 100 CISCO
bridge-group 1
!
interface Vlan1
no ip address
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
ip route-cache flow
!
no ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.2.2
!
ip http server
ip http authentication local
no ip http secure-server
ip http timeout-policy idle 60 life 86400 requests 10000
!
logging trap debugging
snmp-server community public RO
no cdp run
!
control-plane
!
bridge 1 protocol dec
banner login ^CAuthorized access only!
Disconnect IMMEDIATELY if you are not an authorized user!^C
!
scheduler allocate 20000 1000
end
04-15-2008 06:55 PM
Hi Paul,
Please try this:
Give an ip address to interface vlan 1 in a separate subnet, like 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
Configure the hosts with their ip addresses in this same subnet and default gateway of 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0.
Please inform me about the results.
Thanks:
Istvan
04-15-2008 07:08 PM
Paul
There are several things that may need to be investigated as the source of your problem. I will ask about a couple now and if that does not lead to a solution then there may be some others.
My first theory of the problem has to do with running/not running IGRP. I know that IGRP was supported on your old router and is not supported on your new router. I am not sure about the impact of this change. Ordinarily I would say the problem was the absence of a routing protocol which prevents outside connectivity. But the router has a static default route, so everything should be routed up the Frame Relay link.
As I think about what I just typed I recognize a flaw in my theory. The default route will forward data up the Frame Relay. But the absence of a routing protocol may mean that the upstream router does not have a route to the LAN subnet on your router. I would strongly suggest that you check with the upstream router (perhaps you are the administrator of that router also?) and see if they have a route to the subnet of the LAN on your new router.
Perhaps the solution is to get both routers to run EIGRP instead of IGRP.
If that is not the problem I do have some other theories.
HTH
Rick
04-15-2008 07:41 PM
Hey Rick, clksburg had
router igrp 2
network 172.16.0.0
network 192.0.2.0
I have no IGRP or EIGRP on clksburg
The Upstream router or MAIN has
router igrp 2
network 172.16.0.0
network 192.0.0.0
Any ideas? should I enable the following on clksburg, can I enable eigrp on this one and have igrp on MAIN?
EIGRP 2
network 172.16.0.0
network 192.0.2.0
Here are the other configs
ip subnet-zero
ipx routing 99e9-1e60-70c4
interface ethernet0
ip address 192.0.0.254
ipx network 3
bridge-group 1
!
interface serial0.1 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.254.1 255.255.255.0
shutdown
frame-relay interface-dlci 101
bridge-group 1
!
interface serial1
no ip address
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
!
interface serail1.1 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.254.1 255.255.255.0
ipx network 200
frame-relay interface-dlci 106
!
interface serail1.2 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.4.2 255.255.255.0
ipx network 1640
frame-relay interface-dlci 102
bridge-group 1
!
interface serail1.3 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.3.2 255.255.255.0
ipx network 1630
frame-relay interface-dlci 104
bridge-group 1
!
interface serail1.4 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.2.2 255.255.255.0
ipx network 1620
frame-relay interface-dlci 105
bridge-group 1
!
interface serail1.5 point-to-point
ip address 172.16.5.254 255.255.255.0
ipx network 1650
frame-relay interface-dlci 107
bridge-group 1
!
router igrp 2
network 172.16.0.0
network 192.0.0.0
ip host remote 172.16.254.2
ip host clksbrg 172.16.2.1
ip host hunt 172.16.5.1
ip host park 172.16.4.1
ip host chaz 172.16.3.1
ip host beck 172.16.4.1
!
no ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.0.0.250
!
snmp-server community public RO
bridge 1 protocol dec
!
Hopefully that will shed some light on this. This is all the information I was given when I walked into this position last week. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your reply
04-16-2008 02:28 AM
Can you subnet the sites and do a regular ip network, to eliminate bridging? That will help you immensely.
04-16-2008 02:55 AM
Paul
Thanks for posting the additional information. I believe that it confirms my theory that the biggest problem is that not having IGRP means that MAIN no longer has a route to the LAN at clksbrg.
Unfortunately it does not work to run EIGRP at one end and IGRP at the other end. So I believe that either you will need to run EIGRP at MAIN (at least on the point to point Frame Relay to clksbrg) or you will need to configure a static route at MAIN for the LAN subnet at clksbrg.
Like Paolo I had noticed the bridging and wondered about it. But I do not believe that it is the cause of your problem. As far as I can tell you are not bridging IP. You are routing IP and you are routing IPX so I assume that there must be some other non-routed protocol (maybe its AppleTalk or maybe netBEUI, or maybe something else like SNA) which is being bridged.
Note that if you run EIGRP 2 on MAIN then there will be automatic redistribution between IGRP and EIGRP since they use a common autonomous system number.
[edit] If you configure this:
router eigrp 2
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.255
network 192.0.0.0
it should result in EIGRP running on the point to point to clksbrg but not the other Frame Relay subinterfaces.
HTH
Rick
04-16-2008 10:31 AM
Thanks for the info, so you are saying if I add router eigrp 2 to MAIN with network 172.16.0.0.0.0.255 and 192.0.0.0 that I should not have to run eigrp to my other ppp sites?
Can I have igrp running and eigrp at the same time or are you saying to specify eigrp for the interface that connects to ppp at clksburg? Your help is greatly appreciated Rick, thanks for taking the time to try and help me.
04-16-2008 10:55 AM
Paul
clksburg has to run EIGRP as its only routing protocol (since IGRP is not supported on its IOS). MAIN needs to run both EIGRP (to communicate with clksburg) and IGRP to communicate with other sites. You do not need to run EIGRP at the other sites.
Having said that you do not need to run EIGRP at the other sites, I would advocate that it would be a good thing to plan to convert all of the sites to EIGRP. In the short term you do not NEED to run EIGRP on the other remotes but in the longer term I believe that you SHOULD run EIGRP on them.
It is not a problem to run both EIGRP and IGRP on MAIN. By using the optional mask in the EIGRP network statement for clksburg it is possible to run EIGRP on that interface but not on the other Frame Relay subinterfaces. (and it would not hurt anything if you did run EIGRP on those interfaces).
HTH
Rick
04-16-2008 11:21 AM
Ok, so for main I can just add
Router#eigrp 2 or router(config-sub-ifs1.4)eigrp2
network 172.16.0.0.0.0.255
network 192.0.0.0
or is that how I configure clksbrg?
I currently have clksburg configured
eigrp 2
network 172.16.0.0
network 192.0.2.0
Thanks again!
04-16-2008 11:59 AM
Paul
What you have for clksburg is fine. For MAIN it is not quite right. It should be
router eigrp 2
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.255
network 192.0.0.0
HTH
Rick
04-17-2008 05:48 AM
Rick, when I enter
option_care_main(config-rout)#network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.255
I get a invalid input detected at marker on the first zero of the SM >0.0.0.255
Any ideas?
04-17-2008 06:44 AM
Paul
Yes. If it is not working my first idea is to find what version of code you are running. Earlier versions of code did not support the mask in EIGRP network statements. I tend not to think much about that any more because most of the situations I deal with are running more recent code. But remembering that your routers seem to be 2500s I guess the version of code is a variable that we need to investigate.
If your version of code does not support the mask (and if you do not want to update to code that does) then your alternative is to just use the network 172.16.0.0 statement. It will activate EIGRP on the interface that you want and will also activate on the other interfaces to other sites. It should not impact the other sites to receive an EIGRP hello. If they are not configured to run EIGRP they should just ignore the hello message. I suggested using the mask as a way to keep things clean and to reduce (slightly) the amount of traffic on the Frame Relay network. But if the mask does not work it should not be a big deal to just use network 172.16.0.0.
HTH
Rick
04-17-2008 08:15 AM
I went ahead and entered the eigrp settings on main without the mask and then I was able to ping all the other routers. Thanks for all your help Rick, you definitely deserve honorable metnion for your assistance and time, thanks a great deal.
Now if I can get the pc's connected to the 9 port switch to get to the internet we will be up and running after one week.
04-17-2008 08:29 AM
Paul
I am glad that you got the routing protocol issue resolved. Are you having problems with the PCs or are you just saying that you are now just getting to the PC question?
HTH
Rick
04-17-2008 09:02 AM
the pc's cant get to the internet or mapped drives back on Main. I bridge-grouped the vlan 1 with the serial 0/2/0.1 and then switchported all the 0/1/0-8 to vlan1 but they still cannot see the internet. I am getting so frustrated. My boss is getting even more frustrated, they have been down for a week now. ):
Thanks again.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide