So far, so good.
> > Now, one of these remote locations needs an *additional* 30 IP addresses
> > routed to the Ethernet interface!
Point of information needed. What is providng the remote access link,
the PM-2ER via the WAN port?
...
> > I *thought* that
> > even though the PM's don't do VLSM that I would be able to route this
> > second subnet to it via static routing.
...
> > but the customer is
> > unable to see it or get any machines in the second subnet to see the PM
> > (who's ethernet address is in the first subnet). Is there anything I can
> > do to get the second subnet recognized by computers on the remote PM's
> > ethernet port???
Depends on the remote router. If it is the PM-2ER you are out of luck
since the PM can not do secondary netowrk addressing.
> > On the IRX (local):
> > add netmask XXX.YYY.ZZZ.0 255.255.255.248
> > route add XXX.YYY.ZZZ.64 XXX.YYY.WWW.2 1 (ethernet subnet...this works)
> > route add XXX.YYY.ZZZ.32 XXX.YYY.WWW.2 1 (modem subnet..also works)
> >
> > route add XXX.YYY.ZZZ.96 XXX.YYY.WWW.2 1 (SECOND SUBNET of 30 IP's)
> > Traceroutes to XXX.YYY.ZZZ.97-126 DO make it to XXX.YYY.WWW.2!!
> >
> > I have also tried
> > route add XXX.YYY.ZZZ.96 XXX.YYY.ZZZ.65 (the IP address of the remote PM
> > ethernet interface)
> >
> > I entered the same netmask table and routing commands on the remote PM as
> > shown above...no dice. I cannot ping/traceroute to any IP on the second
> > subnet. Do I have to renumber the original 30 IP's to a .192 network???
> > Just say NO! :-)
NO! Not unless you renumber the ENTIRE XXX.YYY.ZZZ.0 network to a .192
subnet mask. (SHUDDER)
> > Is this an error in PC configuration or a limitation
> > of RIPv1??
>
> Its a limitation of RIPv1 and the fact that even with static routes the
> Livingston and more importantly the hosts on the other end are probably
> treating the two ethernets as completely separate networks (which they
> are) and don't support/understand variable subnets. It is analogous to
> trying to carry 2 Class C's on the same wire, both networks will function
> fine but won't see each other.
It is not a RIPv1 limitation. It is the fact that the hosts and routers
are traeting the subnets as separate networks and it is EXACTLY like two
class Cs on one wire.
> Why? Because when one machine doesn't know
> (or forgets) the ethernet MAC address of another machine what does it do?
> It sends out an ARP broadcast message to the net (in this case subnet)
> using its own network's broadcast address which the other network's
> machines aren't listening to.
Absolutely correct.
> The remote Livingston has static routes in
> its tables to route both subnets to its ethernet port I assume. It may or
> may not route in this case, since all traffic for one subnet would come in
> and the have to go out the same interface as destination. If this doesn't
> work you might consider setting up a linux or whatever gateway machine
> that has IP forwarding turned on, IP aliasing for both subnets, gated,
> and/or proxy arping for each subnet. A little more of a pain, but you
> have finer grain control over what is going on with routing.
A good suggestion. You might also consider putting the second subnet
behind the linux or other 'router' so that traffic doesn't cross the wrie
twice.
> You were clear that your packets were getting to the remote portmaster,
> you weren't clear in whether the remote portmaster knew what to do with
> the packets once it got them. Does it have the proper static route
> tables?
Static routes aren't going to help as there isn't a router to send the
second subnet to. It is probably sending the packets back as
'unreachable'.
HTH!
JGT
-- John G. Thompson Livingston Enterprises Inc. Phone: (800) 458-9966 JOAT(MON) 6920-220 Koll Centre Pkwy. Fax: (510) 426-8951 support@livingston.com Pleasanton, CA 94566 http://www.livingston.com