About mfurnival

mfurnival · ‎02-23-2017

Yeah I read that statement too and was not sure how to interpret it. I am asking if a port can be a destination port in a SPAN session and an ERSPAN session, not two SPAN sessions. Unfortunately I don't have any kit at my disposal to test this out on.

mfurnival · ‎02-23-2017

Hi, Is it possible to have an interface that is both a destination in a local SPAN session and a destination in an ERSPAN session? So for example I have Switch A and B. On Switch A G0/1 is destination in a local monitor session and is also a destination in an ERSPAN session from switch B.

mfurnival · ‎06-10-2016

The 8 port switch would not be used for WAN termination. Have a look here at the other ISR routers: https://apps.cisco.com/ccw/cpc/concept/268437899 It is a bit hard to make solid recommendations without knowing what other requirements need satisfying / budget etc.

mfurnival · ‎06-10-2016

That is a very broad request - pretty much any Cisco router will have WAN interfaces that you can put an IP address on. Can you be more specific? Are there any more requirements that need satisfying such as interface termination, throughput etc?

mfurnival · ‎12-21-2015

Hi, You need to configure "Enhanced Object Tracking" (this link refers to 3750 switches but gives a good overview: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3750x_3560x/software/release/12-2_55_se/configuration/guide/3750xscg/sweot.html#pgfId-1082302 See the section on "Configuring Static Routing Support"

mfurnival · ‎12-21-2015

These are Cisco commands and he said that this is not a Cisco router. My interpretation was that the router would have 3 physical interfaces and 3 connections to the switch in which case dot1q tagging is not appropriate here.

mfurnival · ‎12-21-2015

If you do not specifically state which VLANs are allowed on a trunk then it will implicitly allow all VLANs. Are you sure this is not just a case of needing to specify the source address in the ping: ping 192.168.20.11 source 192.168.20.1

mfurnival · ‎12-21-2015

It does somewhat depend on the capabilities of your (non-Cisco) router and whether it supports the creation of multiple IP interfaces and routing between them. But assuming it does then everything you describe should be possible. To answer your questions: 1. is this possible with my current hardware? Can i simply configure VLANS on the switches and use one port in each of the VLAN ranges for the uplink to the router? Yes, you can do this. 2. For VLAN 2 in the above example, what is the best way to configure a VLAN that spans ports on 2 switches? Create the VLAN on both switches and configure the link between the two switches as a trunk allowed to carry VLAN 2. 3. If I want a certain device connected to a specific port on VLAN1 to be accessible to all other VLANS, how can I enable this? If you configure routing on the router correctly all devices in all VLANs will be able to talk to one another.

mfurnival · ‎08-27-2015

Sorry Jon - I did not read your reply correctly. I thought you were suggesting that our router in question was doing the NAT when you actually refer to the next hop.

mfurnival · ‎08-27-2015

He has posted R2 config at the bottom and the HSRP priority is 105 so the priority numbers are not the problem. Mark's comments are correct - the two routers can't see each other so they both assume they are the HSRP master. When you pull the G0/0 interface on R1 then R2 does nothing as it receives no notification and continues assuming it is the HSRP master. We would need to understand the link between these two routers on the LAN side to understand why they can't see each other - in my experience it is usually a VLAN issue or HSRP group number mismatch (though this looks OK here as they are both in group 0)

mfurnival · ‎08-27-2015

Why NAT from one private address space to another though? I can't help but think we don't have the full picture here because there is very little in that config that looks as if connects directly to the internet.

mfurnival · ‎08-27-2015

You can use VRRP priorities so that either Core 1 or Core 2 is the VRRP active router per VLAN. For example Core 1 would be VRRP active for VLANs 3, 5, 7 and 9 and Core 2 would be VRRP active for VLANs 2,4,6 and 8. That way both uplinks to the WAN router would be used though the load balancing would not be completely evenly distributed.

mfurnival · ‎08-27-2015

Yes I spotted that after I posted it. He doesn't explicitly say that the subnet he is trying to get to the internet from is the 192.168.208.0/24 one (although that is my assumption). Unless his LAN side subnet is 192.168.5.0/24 which would explain that odd entry under EIGRP 1. In which case my solution might still be the answer.

mfurnival · ‎08-27-2015

From what you describe it does not look as if you are doing NAT on this particular device in question and your internet breakout is somewhere else further up the chain. What I suspect is happening is that the firewall / router further upstream does not know how to route the return traffic back to this router. If you look at your config: interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 192.168.156.7 255.255.255.0 speed auto full-duplex no mop enabled ! interface Serial0/0 no ip address shutdown ! interface FastEthernet0/1 ip address 192.168.208.1 255.255.255.0 speed auto full-duplex no mop enabled ! router eigrp 1 redistribute connected network 192.168.5.0 network 192.168.156.0 auto-summary ! Your "WAN" side interface is participating in EIGRP but the LAN side is not so anything north of this router does not know about the 192.168.208.0/24 network. Try adding "network 192.168.208.0" under router eigrp 1 process.

mfurnival · ‎05-14-2015

Can you explain what you mean when you say it is not working? Can you also post the output from "show vlan" and "show ip interface brief"? You are aware that a VLAN SVI will not come up until that VLAN is active on interface or a trunk?

Date Registered	‎01-24-2005 06:36 AM
Date Last Visited	‎08-18-2017 04:03 AM
Total Messages Posted	443
Total Helpful Votes Received	118