RE: Routing across CIPE adpaters.

[Doug Johnson <doug.johnson,AT,vifanusa,DOT,com>]

My first thoughts were that all of the subnets should be different between
the CIPE tunnels. In the snip below there is another subnet that is not part
of the CIPE scheme. It looks like this:

192.168.3.0 <-Cisco-> 192.168.1.0 <-CIPE-> 192.168.4.0 <-CIPE-> 192.168.0.0
  ^Cisco between these two^                     

So, the 10.1.0.12 interface is the only interface to hit both 3.0 and 1.0
nets.

Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Smith [mailto:mark.smith,AT,avcosystems,DOT,co,DOT,uk
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:27 PM
To: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
Subject: RE: Routing across CIPE adpaters.

My setup is multiple tunnels to one server, but in my case the endpoint
masquerades all traffic.  Even if that were not the case, I can still access
the cipe address of one tunnel from another.  My setup is admittedly evil,
however, as I run a single subnet and make the cipe addresses part of it.
This only works because of proxy arp, but it does indeed seem to work.

[snip]
> 192.168.3.0     10.1.0.12       255.255.255.0   UG    0      0        0
cipcb5
> 192.168.1.0     10.1.0.12       255.255.255.0   UG    0      0        0
cipcb5

I'm thinking that the gateway should be different for these two subnets...

--
Mark Smith - Avco Systems Ltd
email: mark.smith,AT,avcosystems,DOT,co,DOT,uk
Tel: +44 (0)1784 430996 Fax: +44 (0)1784 431078

--
Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
CIPE info and list archive:
<URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>