Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Re: RIPv2 between Cisco 851 and 871

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: RIPv2 between Cisco 851 and 871

 
 
bod43
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2009
On 9 Mar, 00:32, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have a small lab topology that can be viewed here:
>
> http://www.nyclimits.org/mynetwork/mynetwork.jpg
>
> Here is what I am trying to do:
>
> 1) Get RIP v2 working between routers R1 and R2.
> 2) Have the routes of 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.4.1 *advertised to R2.
>
> The problem I having is that R1 has no problems receiving info from R2 but R2 has problems receiving any updates from
> R1.
>
> I want to save space in this post so I haven't posted the config. Here is some debug output though:
>
> R1 (Cisco 851)
>
> 1124912: .Mar *8 16:02:58.129 PCTime: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0..9 via Vlan1 (192.168.1.1)
> 1124913: .Mar *8 16:02:58.129 PCTime: RIP: build update entries - suppressing null update
> 1124914: .Mar *8 16:02:58.129 PCTime: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0..9 via Vlan1 (192.168.2.1)
> 1124915: .Mar *8 16:02:58.129 PCTime: RIP: build update entries - suppressing null update
> 1124916: .Mar *8 16:02:58.129 PCTime: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0..9 via Vlan1 (192.168.4.1)
> 1124917: .Mar *8 16:02:58.129 PCTime: RIP: build update entries - suppressing null update
> 1124945: .Mar *8 16:04:39.842 PCTime: RIP: received v2 update from 192.168.2.2 on Vlan1
> 1124946: .Mar *8 16:04:39.846 PCTime: * * *192.168.3.0/24 via 0.0..0.0 in 1 hops
> 1124947: .Mar *8 16:04:39.846 PCTime: RIP: Update contains 1 routes
>
> R2 (Cisco 871)
>
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via FastEthernet4 (192.168.2.2)
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: RIP: build update entries
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: * 192.168.3.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: RIP: Update contains 1 routes
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: RIP: Update queued
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: RIP: Update sent via FastEthernet4
> *Mar *2 10:50:18.747: RIP: ignored v2 packet from 192.168.2.2 (sourced from one of our addresses)
>
> I have occasionally seen an error message: RIP: ignored the request received from unlisted network.
>
> My understanding is that all routes should be advertised between the 2 interfaces and everything should just work.
>
> The main questions I have is:
>
> 1) Why isn't R2 receiving updates? Is there something with the 851/71 that needs to be configured differently?
>
> My understanding is that all routes should be advertised between the 2 interfaces and everything should just work.
>
> --Paul


I have not read and studied fully all of the detail and
maybe I missed something, however:-

From your diagram, the first thought is that
192.168.2.1 may be a secondary
address on R1. Dynamic
routing protocols do not work with secondary
addresses is the model that I use.

Perhaps the source address fro the RIP from R1 is
192.168.1.1 and R2 (192.168.2.2) is ignoring the
updates.

I doubt that many people read this group on 9600bps
modems now so I would not worry about
posting a couple of configs
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bod43
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-09-2009
On 9 Mar, 03:37, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Yes, it is a secondary address but I've not known this to be a problem with RIP. Perhaps someone else can confirm this?


You might find -
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/...ide/1crip.html

interesting. You should verify that later IOS behaviour has
not changed.

I have mostly used OSPF and it ignores secondary addresses.
I wonder if "redistribute connected" includes them?
I was surprised to note recently (studying obsolete rubbish
for cisco exams) that not all routing protocols had similar
behaviour. Sadly remembering obsolete rubbish for long enough
to pass is proving to be quite tough

Secondary addresses are in any case a horrible knudge.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is an 851 to 851 ipsec tunnel possible? Zedsquared Cisco 0 02-03-2010 07:34 PM
DNS problems in L2L vpn between Cisco 851 and Firewal Nokia IP220 libra2222 Cisco 0 09-20-2007 02:34 PM
851 and 871 Performance Inquiry KB Cisco 5 06-08-2007 03:57 PM
PIX 501 or 851/871 router? Douglas McIver Cisco 4 09-12-2005 03:20 PM
RipV2 & Subnets xlr8 Cisco 2 06-08-2005 01:27 AM



Advertisments