home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!cronkite.cisco.com!tli
- From: tli@cisco.com (Tony Li)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
- Subject: Re: subnets of net A separated by net B?
- Date: 18 Dec 1992 08:06:59 GMT
- Organization: cisco Systems, Menlo Park, California, USA
- Lines: 33
- Message-ID: <1gs0r3INN7d8@cronkite.cisco.com>
- References: <1992Dec18.042130.8184@draco.macsch.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.cisco.com
-
- In article <1992Dec18.042130.8184@draco.macsch.com> todd@draco.macsch.com (Todd C. Williams) writes:
-
- Can I have two subnets physically separated by a different net?
- Yes.
- Let's say net A is 150.150, with subnets A1=150.150.10 and A2=150.150.20
- and net B is 75. I have a bunch of hosts running RIP, and some CISCOs:
-
- ----A1-----(CISCO)..(CISCO)========B==========(CISCO)-------A2------
-
- The reason I'm doing this is that I'm changing the whole network from
- the B address to subnets of the A address. The Ciscos communicate
- via IGRP and redistribute RIP. All hosts run routed in quiet mode.
-
- The Cisco manual talks about using secondary addresses to accomplish
- this (I think), but their example is pitiful.
- Sorry. We've tried to fix this in later versions. In any case, what you
- want to do is to make A3=150.150.30 be the same a cable B.
-
- I attempted to give the CISCO interfaces on net B secondary addresses
- that conform to the A network. It didn't work.
- What (exactly) did you do?
-
- The biggest problem, (maybe), is that the routing tables of the hosts
- on net B list the A network and NOT the A1 and A2 subnets. (Currently
- all but the A2 subnet is in place).
- The hosts shouldn't really care as long as it points to a router with good
- routes.
-
- --
- abyss \*-'bis\ n
- 1 : the bottomless gulf, pit, or chaos of the old cosmogonies 2 a : an
- immeasurably deep gulf or great space b : intellectual or spiritual
- profundity; also : vast moral depravity 3 a Border Intermediate System
-