In order to implement this, they broke the /24 space into /27 subnets.
This let them allocate the last 3 subnets to an office on the other side
of the WAN.
I was able to set up their OR-U to handle the subnets fairly easily by
upgrading to 3.7.2, turning on OSPF, and setting the netmask on ether0
to 255.255.255.224. This allows the OR to reach machines in the same
subnet range - the OR is at .5, and I could get the machines between .1 and
.30.
Now, Sprint set up secondary addresses on their Cisco so that there was
an address on each subnet that is responded to. I simply then added routes
that pointed to the address the Cisco responded to that was in the same
subnet - .4. I was then able to reach machines on subnets other than
the first by routing them through the Cisco.
My question is whether there is another way to do this. It seemed like
a waste of IP addresses to have to give the Cisco one out of each subnet
range, and adds an extra hop for local traffic.
I seem to recall conversations here regarding the Livingston's inability
to do secondary addresses, and that seems to me like there was no other
way to cover this situation. Am I right, or have I once again missed the
blindingly obvious?
========================================================================
Joe Hartley - jh@brainiac.com - brainiac services, inc
PO Box 5069 : Greene, RI : 02827 - vox 401.539.9050 : fax 401.539.2070
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.