Routers A1,A2,B1,B2 are in AS 65100
Routers 1 and 2 are in AS 65101
Routes from the network2 to network3 should go through RouterA1-Router1
Routes from the network1 to network3 should go through RouterB2-Router2
As for now all routes within AS 65100 to AS 65101 goes through RouterB2/Router2
Is there a way in EIGRP to prefer external routes versus internal routes. EIGRP always picks up internal routes as long as they are available, no matter if external routes have better metric. Our Scenario is that we have DMVPN hub and spoke topology running EIGRP 101. The Core routers also on EIGRP 101 prefer EIGRP 101 routes. We have the new MPLS network running BGP and redistributing these BGP routes into EIGRP 101. The core routers prefer EIGRP 101 routes (internal) to redistributed BGP (external) routes.
My fiance recently signed up for the Screen-wise Panel for Google research. Basically they monitor your TV usage and your internet usage. As part of the program they installed a Cisco WIFI router. I've got no issue with them logging the sites visited etc but I'm a little worried about them possible collecting private information (banking / work related stuff) that I don't want going out there. According to what I've read what's supposed to happen is they replace your router with the new Cisco router.The "technician" who came in and installed the router was actually a builder and not an IT technician and rather than replace our router he connected the Cisco router into port 4 of our router... I wasn't in at the time.
What I was looking to do is separate Port 4 of my router into a separate VLAN that can access the internet, but not access anything on ports 1-3, or the wireless. However, I want to be able to see everything on port 4 from the other side (in other words I want to see "into" the port 4 VLAN, but don't want them to see out). I also wanted DHCP to assign IP addresses correctly depending on where you were plugged in. In this example the first VLAN (your current router ip address) is going to be on 192.168.1.1, and the second VLAN (the new on we create on port 4) is going to be on 192.168.2.1.This is exactly what I'm looking to do, I could then connect the kids machines / tablets / ipods to the Cisco router and have the main machine and my work laptop on the main router... but I don't have a clue how to do it. </quote> Is this something that I am able to do with the Netgear router I own and is it hard to set up?
We have a BGP / OSPF configuration as shown in the topology picture. When the connection towards Internet is taken down, we expect the traffic to be forwarded toward WAN 2 (preferred) or WAN 1. The problem is that the BGP learned routes disappears when the Internet connection is taken down. The IP routing table on R2 only shows internal networks and the networks between R2 and WAN 1 and 2. No routes to internet is shown. We run "show ip bgp neighbors <ip-to-wan-1-router> received-routes" it contain internet routes. And when we run "show ip bgp neighbors <ip-to-wan-1-router> routes" it contains no routes at all.
The problem I am having is that the VPN pool network is not being advertised via EIGRP, but the other networks are.
The other issue I am having is that even though I have created access-lists that allow the inside network (10.0.0.0) to ping the DMZ interface (172.16.101.1) on the ASA, the ASA is not allowing it. I have also created an ACL that allows the DMZ interface to ping inside, but this fails as well.
I am running an ASA with 8.4(3) and am trying to setup a dynamic VPN tunnel. We are having a business reason to establish a VPN tunnel to customers who do not have nailed down IP addresses. Now I found a number of documents that outline the steps involved. It seems the basic steps were to Establish a regular tunnelAdd dynamic crypto mapAssign the dynamic crypto map to the tunnel created under step 1. While this sounds pretty straight forward and simple, while prepping for doing just this I hot a road block while thinking it through. In order for my ASA to put anything into the tunnel it has to have a route to the remote network pointing at my VPN peer at the end of the tunnel. How do I do this in a dynamic tunnel? How do I add a dynamic route so the ASA knows which tunnel to stuff the traffic into? How do I stop the traffic from just being send to the Internet?
I'm trying to set up a Cisco ASA 5505. I'm mainly setting things up through ASDM but I also have console access. Right now while I'm setting it up I have the outside/Vlan2 port attached to my existing network and a laptop connected to the inside/Vlan1 port. More info about that:
interface Vlan1 nameif inside security-level 100
[Code]....
Before I added that last "0.0.0.0" entry, the ASA would not see anything on the internet. Now I can ping any external IP address from the router's console. However, the laptop I have connected to the 'inside' port still cannot reach any IP address outside the 10.10.153.0 network. Every time I try to add a similar route for the 'inside' interface, I get the following error: "You have another route configured for this network any which has same gateway 10.10.152.1 and same metric 1. You cannot add a duplicate route." I know I'm misunderstanding something here. In order to make devices connected to the 'inside' port connect to the internet, I need to set up a new route that will direct these devices to 10.10.152.1, right?
For ASR1000 to support 4M routes, RP2 must be used.
1) RP2 need to have 16GB memory in order to support 4M routes? 2) Need to use ESP20/40 together with RP2? 3) If RP2 + ESP10, supporting route table size down to 1M? 4) 4M routes is shared for both IPv4 an IPv6? 5) SIP card will affect route table size?
I'm using a Catalyst 4500 switch (C4507R+E) with Sup 7E. Cisco Datasheet of this switch says that it can learn maximum 256K IPV4 routes. Currently it just learns 10330 ipv4 routes. However when I show platform hardware ip route summary, it seems that the FIB is just free 100K routes as below output:
In my live VPN concentrator at work, my 5520 is showing a static route for each VPN client that is connected to my SSL vpn right now. This kind of confused me because wouldn't only one route to the address pools subnet be needed for my vpn users?
I bought the SG300-10 Switch a few days ago and updated it to firmware 1.3.0.59, but i think there's a bug in this firmware. If I go to "IP Configuration" IPv4 Routes" in L3 Mode nothing is displayed. In the log file i see that:
21474773112013-Mar-16 09:51:34Error%HTTP_HTTPS-E-DIAGNOSTICS: ERROR - in <RL_vtLeadTableGet> tag, can not find the table rlInetRoutingDistanceTable in the MIB. 21474775182013-Mar-14 22:39:22Error%HTTP_HTTPS-E-DIAGNOSTICS: ERROR - in <RL_vtLeadTableGet> tag, can not find the table rlInetRoutingDistanceTable in the MIB., aggregated (1)
We have a Cisco 7301 concentrator, well two of them in HSRP configuration. We have multiple VPN's setup on that router (crypto map based). Recently we noticed the following:
- There is one IP address that has hundreds of static routes for some reason
- VPN for this customer is working, but I'm trying to find out why this is happening.
Here is how it looks like: S 0.0.0.0 0xF5FFFF2C [1/0] via "ip-address".There are hundreds of entries for a single IP there.
I am working on a network that has four nodes/Currently I have RIP running in between R1 and R2, and between R3 and R2. These are shared and R1 can access R3 just fine.R3 is running BGP and communicating with R4.R3 can ping everything in R4's network with no difficulty.Currently R3 is not rebroadcasting the BGP routes into RIPv2 as needed.I have tried clearing my BGP session and am still not able to get the BGP routes from R4 to R1.
a customer of us asked if C2911 (to be bought) is ok for partial BGP routes.This is the situation: 2 cisco 2911, each peering with 3 other AS (AS1, AS2, AS3), and maybe, in the future, at a small IXP (AS4, AS5, AS6, AS7).They will accept defaults plus partial routes from upstream AS1, AS2, AS3.When deployed at the IXP they also will accept partial routes from AS4-7.So, is 2911 ok for that configuration?the default route is included in the first row of as-path, isn't it?I have no experience with partial routes, only with full (for our datacenter) and default only (for other customers).
i been filterin LSA type 3 and the table route localy routes en ospf v2 ipv4 whit the commands distribute-list , area filter-list route-maps ACL and prefix-lis ¿but how can i do the same filterin in ipv6 whith OSPFv3?
We are planning to run BGP on our pair of 3560G switch, I would like to know how many bgp routes it can support? it currently running on advance IP service.
I need to use IP SLA to monitor remote routes on CAT6500
CAT6500 is running "sup-bootflash:s72033-jk9o3sv-mz.122-18.SXD7b.bin" on SUP720 Feature Navigator said it is ENT FW W/MPLS/IPV6/SSH/3DES After drill down into feature set I found that this version support for IP SLA such IP SLAs - ICMP Path Echo Operation
BUT, back to console I can not do such (config) ip sla command (not found cmd CAT6500(config)# ip sla 1) What I did wrong or others cmd imply this ip sla process?
We've got a fairly plain-vanilla VPN configuration on a C3660 router running IOS 12.3(26) so that our employees can initiate VPN sessions to our office using their Windows or Linux workstations. In a typical windows L2TP VPN configuration, the default route is set to the VPN server, and no other routes are passed to the clients, which means that if the client disables "use default route" setting, even getting to the office network fails.
I know there's a way to do this, but I haven't found it yet. What I want to do is pass local routes to the client so that only those routes transit the VPN, and permit the clients to use their own default routes.
Is there anyway I can see how many routes are internal to an AS?
So, something like "show ip route in AS1234" where AS1234 is the local AS number. All internal routes within AS1234 are being parsed around via iBGP, but AS1234 has a full BGP table from upstream provides so "show ip route" shows all local and global routes. How can I see all the routes within the local AS only?
I have a question regarding EIGRP.I have an ASA and two 3750 switches connected as follows ASA---eth----Cat3750_1----eth----Cat3750_2.All of them are configured for eigrp 100. Routes are being exchanged between ASA and Cat3750_1 and between Cat3750_1 and Cat3750_2. But for some reason I cannot see the routes being exchanged between Cat3750_2 and ASA. [code]
I am trying to set up a pair of 1941 routers in a HA configuration to act as L2L VPN gateways. The active router of the pair should distribute routes to the remote destinations using OSPF to internal routers. The VPN part is working fine and the routers are correctly advertising routes to internal hosts, however my problem is that when an IPsec sessions disconnect, the routes disappear and therefore internal hosts cannot reestablish a connection. If the remote end establishes a connection, the routes appear again and connectivity is restored.
My setup is as follows: (ASA) --> (pvpn01 & pvpn02 HA pair) --> (internet) --> (remote peer)
The other router in the pair has exactly the same config except with different interface IPs. The remote end is configured to talk to the HA address 91.216.255.248.The VPN routers are both running IOS version 15.0(1r)M9.
When I initially boot the routers, the route for 192.168.66.0/24 appears in 'show crypto route', and is advertised to neighboring routers. If I ping an address on that network an SA is established and stays active as long as there is traffic flowing. pvpn02#show crypto route
If I then stop traffic flowing over the tunnel and wait until the IPsec SA lifetime is expired, the route is deleted from the system routing table and therefore not distributed by OSPF. The result is that internal hosts cannot reestablish the tunnel as the other routers have no route to the 192.168.66.0/24 network.
Is this a bug, or is there another way to get the RRI routes to persist on the active router?
Problem: RV042 is not announcing a class C VPN route via RIP to other routers. It announces the gateway public address via rip, but not the VPN route.
I am attempting to use a pair of RV042 as a redundant links between our home office and a branch. The home office and branch is already connected via a T1. Each location also has an additional cable internet connection with public IP address and a cisco 1921 router controlling the traffic.
The 1921 routers are using OSPF to route traffic over the T1 and have RIPv2 enabled to talk to their local respective RV042s. Here is a description of how the network is set up.
MainRouter - cisco 1921 Eth0 - Network is 192.168.41.0/24 IP address is 192.168.41.20 Eth0/1 - Network 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.254 T1 connection to branch router
[code]....
Anyhow I'm thinking a workaround might be to set up a GRE tunnel across those 10.0.X.X subnets to the other side so I can at least dynamically route traffic accross.... Without the RIP routes being announced I don't have automatic failover!
Will there be a way sometime in the future to add static IPv6 routes? I have a routed /64 and a routed /48 from a tunnel broker that terminates on my DIR-815, and I want to hang the /48 off of another router that I have attached to my LAN interface(goes to my home lab setup that I use for my job). I could just move the tunnel endpoint to the other router, but I like having IPv6 access for all my other PCs on the LAN segment.
I have a 2811 router that I want to configure the F/E 0/0 & 0/1 to be able to communicate.FE 0/0 is configured with 192.168.16.1/24.FE 0/1 is configured with 10.10.10.10/24 Physically attached to this port is going to be a wireless router configured with 10.10.10.1.My question is how to configure and setup the routes properly and do I need to configure NAT and Access Lists.
i have a problem in my eigrp configuration that the other branch only see the network that i am advertised in eigrp and can't see the the redistibuted static route inside eigrp .. i dunno why is thatand that's my running.
to the above question. I see the specs for the WS-SUP720-3B and 3BXL but not the WS-SUP720-BASE with the MSFC3 and PFC3A daughter cards.The 3B can handle 256,000 routes using IPv4 and the 3BXL can do 1,000,000.
I am facing two issues in BGP both the topology and Config files.Because the link between Vail and Telluride runs iBGP, both routers will learn about the networks in AS 300 and AS 400 through native BGP only and both AS's do reach each other. Both routers are also running OSPF with Aspen and BGP routes are redistributed into OSPF domain. Now, Aspen knows about the networks in AS 300 and AS 400. Now suppose the link between Vail and Telluride fails, both AS 300 and AS 400 can't reach each other anymore. The only solution to this is to redistribute OSPF routes to BGP on Vail and Telluride. But when i did this, only routes with "O" learned by Tahoe and Alta. In other words, Tahoe sees only 192.168.1.220, 192.168.1.196 and Alta sees only the same routes. Why the redistribution from OSPF to BGP didn't advertise the O E2 routes?
This actually was discussed before but i still can't get it. It is not an actual issue.It is about "Syncronization". I know that we've said many times to turn on Sync. when we do redistribution from BGP to an IGP to make sure that the routes are installed correctly in the IGP routing table. However, as you notice in the configuration, i didn't enable Sync. on Vail and Telluride for a long time and redistribution still works fine.
I have a pair of N5K's, down stream from them are from Fabric Interconnects and a UCS chassis. Upstream is a stack of 3750's then ASA5510's.
I am trying to backup the config to our TFTP server and I am getting 'no route to host'.. I tried to add a route, and found that N5K uses VRF's for routing?? .. After some looking I see there are two base VRF's 'management' and 'default'.. the management VRF has a default gateway entry and a single interface member (mgmt0).. when I look at the default VRF .. there are no interface members or routing entries.. Ok, I can handle that just add some interfaces and add a default gateway. Then I get lost:
I'm able to access the UCS manager..... so how the heck is that even possible if there's no gateway defined anywhere (or maybe I'm missing something?). My theory was: add all other ports but mgmt0 to the default VRF, and have the default gateway point out of the uplinks (a vPC).. but wasn't sure how that would affect anything and mainly just wanted to know how I was able to access the UCS manager in light of the fact that there is no default gateway anywhere that I could see...
