Spreadout PM's (fwd)

Brian 'MegaZone' Bikowicz ((no email))
Thu, 9 Nov 1995 17:50:22 -0800 (PST)

Once upon a time Yoon W. Kim shaped the electrons to say...
>Assumptions:
> 1 - Static IP addresses for PPP clients
> 2 - PM's are spread out over WAN (each LAN connected
> via routers over T1 links)
> 3 - PPP clients can dial into any one of the PM's

Oh, bad design considering RIP. Technically this plain shouldn't work
because of the way RIP will handle the routing. (Well, you could make a
static route Daisy Chain...)

>Question:
> * How can you let the client's static IP address work
> from all PM's, which may be on different subnets from
> one another?

If the PMs are all on the same ether, on each
'add netmask x.x.x.0 255.255.255.255'

Where x.x.x.0 is the network the static IPs are from.

However, you say they aren't on the same ether. They are on seperate
networks. In that case - I don't think it will work. RIP will collapse
the routes to network routes on entwork boundaries, and you'll have routers
fighting over who gets the packets. If it were on the same LAN, the above
table entry would allow the PMs to exchange host routes, but with more
than one LAN you can't do it. Routers don't route host routes, just network
routes.

> * Should the PM's be connected in a different way for
> this to work?

Honestly it is an invalid configuration following the strict rules of RIP.
A network *must* be contiguous according to RIP - and assigning IPs
from one network on portmasters on different networks voids that.

-MZ

--
Although I work for Livingston Enterprises Technical Support, I alone am
responsible for everything contained herein.  So don't waste my managers'
time bitching to them if you don't like something I've said.  Flame me.
Phone: 800-458-9966  support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
FAX: 510-426-8951    6920 Koll Center Parkway #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566