[afnog] Cisco 1605-R Router problem !

[antonio at nambu.uem.mz]

Any specific reason why you have 255.240.0.0 netmask???

Cheers,



On 22 Oct 2004 at 12:08, Alamicha Chapuma wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Candler" <B.Candler at pobox.com>
> To: "Alamicha Chapuma" <achapuma at eomw.net>
> Cc: <afnog at afnog.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [afnog] Cisco 1605-R Router problem !
> 
> 
> | On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:47:00AM +0200, Alamicha Chapuma wrote: |
> > The sites which loose connectivity are the Breezcom ones.  They are
> on a | > 172.16.1.x   network while the others are on a 172.30.x.x
> network. | | Does that mean you are overlaying two IP ranges on the
> same physical network | (the Cisco has 'ip address 172.16.1.1' and 'ip
> address 172.30.1.1 | secondary')?
> 
> No.  The cisco has an ip of 172.16.1.1 and mask 255.240.0.0 so it can
> talk to a wide range of hosts.  However, the standard configuration we
> have is that the client sites are set with the SUs on a 172.16.1.x  
> ip address. The 172.30.x.x  sites go through an access point which
> acts as a router and has an interface set to 172.16.1.20.
> 
> |
> | Or are the wireless access points also routers, and the Cisco has
> static | routes to your clients, with the access points as the next
> hop? | The client sites have a router or routing server so the traffic
> is from the cisco 1605 to these.
> 
> | In the first case, your Cisco ARP cache will contain the IP
> addresses of | each of the clients. In the second, your Cisco ARP
> cache will contain only | the IP addresses of the wireless access
> points.
> 
> The arp cache lists the 172.16.x.x   addresses of the devices it talks
> to (routers including the 172.16.x.x  address of the 172.30.x.x 
> access point).
> 
> |
> | > Some one has suggested ip route-cache on the problem interface. 
> We will be | > looking into this. | | That's possible (I include that
> under category "router software bug"). I've | seen strange problems
> with CEF and the like several years ago, but I thought | it worked
> more or less these days. | | Rgds, | | Brian.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> afnog mailing list
> afnog at afnog.org
> http://listserv2.cfi.co.ug/mailman/listinfo/afnog