Routing dialup addresses that don't share subnet (fwd)

MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:32:05 -0700 (PDT)

Once upon a time Ed Donovan shaped the electrons to say...
>How do you setup a PM (2E-30's in our case, ComOS 3.5) with assigned
>addresses in different subnet than its ethernet port? I understand this

Just set the pool address - the PM doesn't care.

>can be done but have not been able to route it successfully. (The other
>important nodes on the network are Linux servers, Cisco 2500's, and a
>few Ascend ISDN routers. A configuration without OSPF is preferred.)

Ah. Then you have to do one of these:
1. Learn to stop living in fear and love OSPF. ;-)
2. Setup a static route to route the appropriate IPs to the PM.
3. Use the old Netmask Table hack and end up with a little clutch of PMs
all talking to each other, and make on the gateway.

The first solution is the one I recommend - but the Ascend's may not play
nice with OSPF.

>And, parallel question, how can a Framed-Address dialup be configured to
>route properly if it dials in to a PM with an ethernet address and
>assigned pool that don't share its subnet?

This is really something for OSPF - OSPF would take care of this automatically.

Now, if this static IP user always dials into the same PM a simple static
route aimed there will do.

If they land on various PMs then you need to play *very* messy games with
the netmask table, et al.

In closing I'd say the best answer to all of the above is: OSPF.

-MZ

--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588