Hi,
I have two cedge router and I have configured VRRP in the service VPN (VRF 1) but the VRRP state of two router is master. I have pasted the configuration in below.
Router1:interface Vlan101vrf forwarding 1ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0no ip re...
Hi,
I would like to create a PBR and apply it to an interface. I have created the route policy below and also a localized policy. I added the route policy to the localized policy and finally included the localized policy in a device template. However...
Hi everyone,
Currently, I've been using the Interface NAT type for Direct Internet Access (DIA) across multiple networks.
However, I recently came across a Cisco article (Below link) suggesting the utilization of a Loopback interface for DIA ins...
I want to establish a centralized policy in SD-WAN to route traffic to a particular destination FQDN. I understand that in vManage, there are Custom Applications that allow me to define specific FQDNs or applications. However, when attempting to crea...
NAT is fully functional, but it seems to encounter issues specifically with ICMP packets.
my configuration:
ip access-list extended NAT-0-0-0120 permit IP 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any140 permit icmp 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
ip nat inside source list N...
I found the problem. Behind these two routers is an old non-Cisco switch. I deactivated the 'Unknown Multicast No Flood' feature in this switch, and the problem has been solved.
Yes, I can ping , the ICMP goes between the two router.
There is an old (non-Cisco) switch between the two routers. I have doubts that the old switch does not support protocol 112 or Multicast. I must more investigate about these unknown old switches
I'm not convinced why I should use a Loopback interface instead of a Physical interface. Can you please provide an example of a situation in which I can use a Loopback interface for Direct Internet Access (DIA)?