Re: Routing dialup addresses that don't share subnet

Ed Donovan (ed@darkleaf.capecod.net)
23 Apr 1997 00:39:11 -0400

Thanks very much, MZ, and Stephen Fisher. (Excuse my
delay--unexpectedly long weekend :) My concerns about OSPF were about
some other machines on the network, and skipping the memory upgrade on
the PMs if a RIP method was just as good. It sounds well worth
forgetting the second issue, so hopefully we can get the rest of the
machines to sing along.

Now I have to ask the embarrassingly naive questions, if you don't mind
too much. Will only routers w/ OSPF, and machines running gated or some
equivalent, be aware that the assigned and static address routed by OSPF
are on the lan? Beyond whether the Ascends work (MAX 1800's, I'll
research that), I guess some win95 and NT machines (yuck) on the lan may
have to reach them. Will an OSPF router, set as their main gateway,
route that traffic without much special/difficult configuration? (Blow
me off if I'm off-topic here.) What sucks about our current setup is
that a lot of traffic between machines on the same ethernet segment gets
passed through a router, running over the ethernet twice. If I can
limit that to the windoze machines I'd be pretty happy.

Getting sleepy--hope this hangs together all right. Thanks again,

--
Ed Donovan


ed@capecod.net			Cape Internet System Administration		






MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com> writes:


> 
> 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