[c-nsp] Help with topology changes....

[Rodney Dunn]

a) Please be more clear about what you mean when you
   say shut down.
   Do you mean it's administratively shut down?  
   Is it just not passing traffic?
   If it's just not passing traffic get:
   sh int
   sh controllers
    multiple times

Then try "shut/no shut" under the interface or "clear interface".

It could be the driver code is locked up.  

Under no circumstance should an interface stop passing traffic
and it's usually a software bug if it does on a router.


b) For your routing problem.  It sounds to me like someone just
   told you thinking it was a PC out there and the firewal
   was a single link to the world without understanding what
   routing really means.
   For us to help you there we need to understand more about
   how you want your traffic to route.

ie: Do you have the FR and you want the DSL/internet path
    as a backup?
    How are you routing over the FR? (static, OSPF, eigrp, etc..)
    Or are you just wanting the DSL at the remotes to be the
    gateway for internet traffic and not as a backup to the headend?

Rodney


On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 03:49:58PM -0500, Richard Golodner wrote:
> 	We have recently seen our Ethernet interfaces shut down with the
> introduction of some new network topology. For a number of years we have
> been using IP unnumbered on our RFC 1918 Frame Links to simplify our
> configuration at our branch offices. These frame links provide a private,
> unmeshed network between our branches and the corporate headquarters. 
> 	In the fall of 2004 we introduced DSL access to the internet at our
> branch offices. In order to protect against any threats we have added a
> hardware based firewall at each location. In order to get these units to
> route properly we were told by the manufacturer to add a gateway of last
> resort routing statement to each branch router.  For example: ip route
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.9.2  Since doing this we have seen our Ethernet interfaces
> shut down on occasion due to what seems to be excessive overhead. I also see
> traffic from my other subnets in the firewall logs, which I am sure is a
> result of the last resort statement. A simple reload brings the network back
> to life, but I would like to know if there exists a better configuration
> than the one we are using.
> 	We are wondering if assigning an IP to the Serial Interface rather
> than using IP unnumbered would be better. 
> 	We are using Cisco 1720 with 48 megs of RAM and our clients are XP
> with service pack 2 applied. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 						Richard Golodner
> 						Network Manager
> 						Aetea Information Technology
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/