<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: Routing: Ping from router A to Host behind Router B does not work
From: "Nils Lichtenfeld" <Nils.Lichtenfeld,AT,gmx,DOT,net>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:58:34 +0100
In-reply-to: <OFE5D1E49C.DC458517-ONC1256B56.0053012C@medisearch-int.com>

Hallo Keith!

> > Ok, makes sense. And a spider web with 3 routers comes next. You said I 
>should use the same IP for the cipe-devices as those of
the
> > eth0s(?). The central router will have 2 cipe-devices and both need a IP 
>and the can not be the same, or am I mistaken? What IPs
> > should I give them then?[keith@ksmith]/home/keith/MailFolders<314>ifconfig
>
>
> You are mistaken:
>
> cipcb0    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.64.2  Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:51083 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:55437 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:6274312 (5.9 Mb)  TX bytes:10801588 (10.3 Mb)
>
> cipcb1    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.4.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:257 errors:3 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:3
>           TX packets:264 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:51752 (50.5 Kb)  TX bytes:28008 (27.3 Kb)
>
>
> cipcb2    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.43.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:89 errors:5 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:5
>           TX packets:85 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:8304 (8.1 Kb)  TX bytes:16508 (16.1 Kb)
>
>
> cipcb3    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.42.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:5694 errors:5 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:5
>           TX packets:8231 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:665640 (650.0 Kb)  TX bytes:9540884 (9.0 Mb)
>
>
> cipcb4    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.25.128  
>Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:52483 errors:6 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:6
>           TX packets:52611 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:5239936 (4.9 Mb)  TX bytes:6267516 (5.9 Mb)
>
>
> cipcb5    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.9.128  
>Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:22049 errors:85 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:85
>           TX packets:28756 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:1979704 (1.8 Mb)  TX bytes:33298104 (31.7 Mb)
>
>
> cipcb6    Link encap:IPIP Tunnel  HWaddr
>           inet addr:192.168.64.128  P-t-P:192.168.128.1  
>Mask:255.255.255.255
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP  MTU:1442  Metric:1
>           RX packets:110413 errors:90 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:90
>           TX packets:111574 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
>           RX bytes:41246080 (39.3 Mb)  TX bytes:82996032 (79.1 Mb)
>
>
>
> Unless you have a compelling reason to put each VPN on a different
> address on the host I wouldn't!

Ok, thats impressive.... So is 192.168.64.128 at the same time your ethx IP? 
Or would that be a bad idea?

As for the Picture I have "drawn", I don not think it was a good idea. Since 
if network C likes to talk with network A, traffic has
to go through network B... Would not a triagle be better?

                                                                              
       192.168.1.0/24
                                                                              
                  |
                                                                              
           192.168.1
                                                                              
            Router A
                                                                              
         cipcb0 cipcb1
                                                                             
192.168.1.1   192.168.1.1
                                                                              
        /                      \
                                                                              
      /                          \
                                                                              
    /                              \
                                                           cipcb0 192.168.2.1 
                192.168.3.1 cipcb0
          192.168.2.0/24 -- 192.168.2.1 Router B                              
                     Router C 192.168.3.1 --
192.168.3.0/24
                                                           cipcb1 192.168.2.1 
---------- 192.168.3.1 cipcb1

Hope it shows up readable. Do you think the IPs given are a good choice?

Gereetings,
Nils





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]