GRE Tunnel
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by tsvanduyn@yahoo.com on November 21, 2005, 8:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options router B show the tunnel 0 interface is up, line protocol is up. I can ping 172.33.1.14 and 172.33.1.10 from both router A and router B. When I try to ping 172.20.42.17 from router A the ping fails. I can ping 172.20.42.1 from router A (itself) without any problems. The same is true for router B, I can ping 172.20.42.17 (itself), but not 172.20.42.1 the other end of the tunnel. Does anyone know why the tunnel interface would say up and up but be unable to ping the other side of the tunnel when I can ping both the source and destination addresses of the tunnel endpoints? I can only think that it would be a routing issue but, I'm not sure what I am missing. Any help would be appreciated. Router A interface Tunnel0 ip address 172.20.42.1 255.255.255.224 ip pim sparse-dense-mode tunnel source 172.33.1.14 tunnel destination 172.33.1.10 interface Serial0/1 ip address 172.33.1.14 255.255.255.252 ip pim sparse-dense-mode no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable ip route 172.20.42.17 255.255.255.255 Serial0/1 ip route 172.33.1.10 255.255.255.255 Serial0/1 Router B interface Tunnel0 ip address 172.20.42.17 255.255.255.224 ip pim sparse-dense-mode tunnel source 172.33.1.10 tunnel destination 172.33.1.14 interface Serial0/0 ip address 172.33.1.10 255.255.255.252 ip pim sparse-dense-mode no ip mroute-cache load-interval 30 no fair-queue no cdp enable ip route 172.20.42.1 255.255.255.255 Serial0/0 ip route 172.33.1.14 255.255.255.255 Serial0/0 Thanks, Travis | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by neo80123@googlemail.com on November 22, 2005, 8:49 am
Please log in for more thread options As far as i know, connected Serial interfaces should be in the same subnet to have direct connectivity. But u can try to set the routes through the tunnel interface. sth like that ip route 172.33.1.14 255.255.255.255 172.20.42.1 regards, sebastian | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by tsvanduyn@yahoo.com on November 22, 2005, 11:56 am
Please log in for more thread options Sebastian,
I guess I forgot to say that these two routers are connected through MPLS cloud. They are not directly connected. I do have connectivity because I can ping through the cloud but, I cannot use the tunnel addresses to ping each other. Thank you for your response. Also the route that you put in down there looks like it would cause the endpoint of one of the the tunnel to go through the tunnel itself. I thought that this was something that shouldn't be done. Doesn't this cause some recurive routing errors? Thanks, Travis neo80123@googlemail.com wrote: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Merv on November 22, 2005, 12:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options > Doesn't this cause some recurive routing errors?
YES | |||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| GRE Tunnel up/up Cannot ping tunnel interface | March 6, 2006, 3:55 pm |
| VPN tunnel | July 25, 2005, 8:10 pm |
| GRE Tunnel - one way ? | September 30, 2005, 6:39 am |
| Best MTU value for our VPN tunnel | October 11, 2005, 10:39 pm |
| NAT-T + VPN Tunnel | November 6, 2005, 4:06 am |
| 515 & 501 VPN Tunnel Help | April 4, 2006, 12:47 pm |
| GRE Tunnel | November 21, 2005, 8:38 pm |
| PLEASE HELP - GRE tunnel | September 5, 2006, 7:43 pm |
| NAT w Tunnel | January 25, 2007, 9:06 am |
| GRE tunnel and NAT | May 20, 2008, 10:52 pm |
| syslog through tunnel | February 11, 2005, 9:55 am |
| Help With 1710 to Pix 501 VPN Tunnel | July 24, 2005, 8:51 pm |
| tunnel interface ip | September 14, 2005, 1:37 pm |
| PIX 7.0.4 tunnel all traffic. | November 3, 2005, 12:27 pm |
| routing vpn tunnel | December 22, 2005, 10:53 am |
> As far as i know, connected Serial interfaces should be in the same
> subnet to have direct connectivity. But u can try to set the routes
> through the tunnel interface.
>
> sth like that
>
> ip route 172.33.1.14 255.255.255.255 172.20.42.1
>
> regards,
> sebastian