I recently had to replace some routers and have the following problem.

I have a 2620 with the T1 card at a colo site and a 1721 with the same
T1 card at the office.  The 2620 T1 card is configured with a .73/29
address and the 1721 with .74.   The T1 is up and running fine.  On
the FastEthernet0 in the 1721 I have the .80/28 address.

The machines on my local network can ping the .80 and the .74  on
the1721 and each other, but nothing beyond that.

The 1721 router can ping anything on the internet, the 2620, and the
local network.

I can ping from the internet to the 2620 and the .74 on the 1721 but
not the .80 or my local network.

I presume the is just a routing issue, but the things I have tried so
far fail.

Any ideas?   I tried calling Cisco, but they seem not be interested on
the weekend.

Thanks.

* "Steve Christensen" hackte in den Rechenknecht:
>
> I presume the is just a routing issue, but the things I have tried so
> far fail.

If you presume that, you already had a look into the routing tables of
both routers. Share it and possibly someone can point you to an answer.

> Thanks.

luke
-- 
Da ich  lauter solche unsinnichen kommentare bekomme  wer ich mich jetzt
na den verwalter der news wenden und eine untersuchung einleiten lassen
wiel hier man nur noch solchen unsin an atworten bekommt und ich setze
dem jezt ein enden             --J.Daub in <b04dcl$ne$1@news.online.de>

On 27/03/2011 09:48, "Steve Christensen" wrote:
> I recently had to replace some routers and have the following problem.
>
> I have a 2620 with the T1 card at a colo site and a 1721 with the same
> T1 card at the office.  The 2620 T1 card is configured with a .73/29
> address and the 1721 with .74.   The T1 is up and running fine.  On
> the FastEthernet0 in the 1721 I have the .80/28 address.
>
> The machines on my local network can ping the .80 and the .74  on
> the1721 and each other, but nothing beyond that.
>
> The 1721 router can ping anything on the internet, the 2620, and the
> local network.
>
> I can ping from the internet to the 2620 and the .74 on the 1721 but
> not the .80 or my local network.
>
> I presume the is just a routing issue, but the things I have tried so
> far fail.
>
> Any ideas?   I tried calling Cisco, but they seem not be interested on
> the weekend.

Maybe you don't have an appropriate level of $upport with them?

Perhaps you could post more information. The outputs of
#show ip route
#show ip interface brief
#show access-lists
would be most useful.

-- 
Mouse.

Do I get you right - you have e.g. 192.168.1.72/29 on your T1 (6 
addresses - 4 of them are wasted!) and e.g. 192.168.1.80/28 NETWORK on 
your 1721 LAN side, I assume you have chosen .1.81 for your 
fastethernet0/0 interface.

The behaviour you describe occurs when no routing protocol is active / 
static routing is configured wrong, or when access-lists block some 
traffic. As others have already written, show your routing table, 
interface config and access lists if available.

cheers

Thomas

Am 27.03.2011 10:48, schrieb "Steve Christensen":
> I recently had to replace some routers and have the following problem.
>
> I have a 2620 with the T1 card at a colo site and a 1721 with the same
> T1 card at the office.  The 2620 T1 card is configured with a .73/29
> address and the 1721 with .74.   The T1 is up and running fine.  On
> the FastEthernet0 in the 1721 I have the .80/28 address.
>
> The machines on my local network can ping the .80 and the .74  on
> the1721 and each other, but nothing beyond that.
>
> The 1721 router can ping anything on the internet, the 2620, and the
> local network.
>
> I can ping from the internet to the 2620 and the .74 on the 1721 but
> not the .80 or my local network.
>
> I presume the is just a routing issue, but the things I have tried so
> far fail.
>
> Any ideas?   I tried calling Cisco, but they seem not be interested on
> the weekend.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks for the comments.  Here are the details I have.  (The colo with
the 2620 is miles away so I am using info I wrote down from there for
now)

FastEthernet0/0  (connected to ISP's systems)

xxx.xxx.140.214 255.255.255.252

Ethernet1/0 (connected to a switch at colo then to servers there)

xxx.xxx.208.65 255.255.255.248

Serial0/0  (T-1 card to connect to T-1 card  on 1721 in office)

xxx.xxx.208.73 255.255.255.248   (xxx's are numbers of course)

On the 2620

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 xxx.xxx.140.213

The Ethernet1/0 to the servers is working fine and servers are visible
to the world.    The T-1 is the problem though is seems to be
communicating but as you all say the routing is in bad shape.   This
was the setup the support guy at my ISP suggested for the IP addresses
and netmasks.   He had no idea how to set up the T-1 and clearly
neither do I.   My previous set up was running fine for 8 years so I
"lost" what knowledge I had about all of this back then.

Here on the 1721 I get

#show ip  route

Default gateway is not set

Host       Gateway       Last Use   Total Uses    Interface
ICMP redirect cache is empty

# show ip interface brief

Interface              IP-Address            OK?         Method
Status                   Protocol
FastEthernet0     xxx.xxx.208.80       Yes          manual
uo                         up
Serial0                xxx.xxx.208.74        Yes
manual           up                        up

#show access-lists
gives no output

#show run on the 1721     contains ip related lines

no ip  routing
ip subnet-zero
ip classless

Under Seril0

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 xxx.xxx.208.74

if any of this is useful.

On Mar 27, 1:05=A0pm, Thomas Caspari <ThomasCasp...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Do I get you right - you have e.g. 192.168.1.72/29 on your T1 (6
> addresses - 4 of them are wasted!) and e.g. 192.168.1.80/28 NETWORK on
> your 1721 LAN side, I assume you have chosen .1.81 for your
> fastethernet0/0 interface.
>
> The behaviour you describe occurs when no routing protocol is active /
> static routing is configured wrong, or when access-lists block some
> traffic. As others have already written, show your routing table,
> interface config and access lists if available.
>
> cheers
>
> Thomas
>
> Am 27.03.2011 10:48, schrieb "Steve Christensen":
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I recently had to replace some routers and have the following problem.
>
> > I have a 2620 with the T1 card at a colo site and a 1721 with the same
> > T1 card at the office. =A0The 2620 T1 card is configured with a .73/29
> > address and the 1721 with .74. =A0 The T1 is up and running fine. =A0On
> > the FastEthernet0 in the 1721 I have the .80/28 address.
>
> > The machines on my local network can ping the .80 and the .74 =A0on
> > the1721 and each other, but nothing beyond that.>
> > The 1721 router can ping anything on the internet, the 2620, and the
> > local network.
>
> > I can ping from the internet to the 2620 and the .74 on the 1721 but
> > not the .80 or my local network.
>
> > I presume the is just a routing issue, but the things I have tried so
> > far fail.
>
> > Any ideas? =A0 I tried calling Cisco, but they seem not be interested o=
n
> > the weekend.
>
> > Thanks.

* "Steve Christensen" hackte in den Rechenknecht:
>
> Here on the 1721 I get
>
> #show ip  route
>
> Default gateway is not set
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the part, why you have problems
>
> Host       Gateway       Last Use   Total Uses    Interface
> ICMP redirect cache is empty
>
> # show ip interface brief
>
> Interface              IP-Address            OK?         Method
> Status                   Protocol
> FastEthernet0     xxx.xxx.208.80       Yes          manual
> uo                         up
> Serial0                xxx.xxx.208.74        Yes
> manual           up                        up
>
> #show access-lists
> gives no output
>
> #show run on the 1721     contains ip related lines
>
> no ip  routing
> ip subnet-zero
> ip classless
>
> Under Seril0
>
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 xxx.xxx.208.74

and this why it is failing. You can't set your default gateway to your
own interface address. Either you set it to the interface or you set it
to the next hop. Preferably the latter or a combination like:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial 0 xxx.xxx.208.73

> if any of this is useful.
>

luke
-- 
Da ich  lauter solche unsinnichen kommentare bekomme  wer ich mich jetzt
na den verwalter der news wenden und eine untersuchung einleiten lassen
wiel hier man nur noch solchen unsin an atworten bekommt und ich setze
dem jezt ein enden             --J.Daub in <b04dcl$ne$1@news.online.de>

Thanks for the suggestions.    I tried them and this is now the status
of the 1721.

#show run

interface FastEthernet0
 ip address xx.xxx.208.80 255.255.255.0
 speed auto
 full-duplex
!
interface Serial0
 ip address xx.xxx.208.74 255.255.255.0
 service-module t1 timeslots 1-24 speed 56
!
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0 xx.xxx.208.73
no ip http server
!


Router#show ip route
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS
level-2
       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user
static route
       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is xx.xxx.208.73 to network 0.0.0.0

     xx.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       xx.xxx.208.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0
                     is directly connected, Serial0
S*   0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via xx.xxx.208.73, Serial0



Router#show ip interface brief
Interface                  IP-Address      OK? Method
Status                Prot
ocol
FastEthernet0        xx.xxx..208.80   YES manual up
up

Serial0                    xx.xxx.208.74   YES manual
up                    up



Router#show access-lists

Router#



Router#ping xx.xxx.208.66

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to xx.xxx.208.66, timeout is 2 seconds:
..!!!!
Success rate is 80 percent (4/5), round-trip min/avg/max =3D 4/5/8 ms
Router#ping xx.xxx3.208.73

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to xx.xxx.3.208.73, timeout is 2
seconds:
!....
Success rate is 20 percent (1/5), round-trip min/avg/max =3D 8/8/8 ms
Router#ping xx.xxx.208.85

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to xx.xxx.208.85, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max =3D 1/1/4 ms
Router#

Router#ping xx.xxx.208.80

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to xx.xxx.208.80, timeout is 2 seconds:
......
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
Router#,


I can ping from my local network to the .80, but not out anywhere.

Steve C.


Lukas Schratz <lukas.schr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * "Steve Christensen" hackte in den Rechenknecht:
>
> > Here on the 1721 I get
>
> > #show ip =A0route
>
> > Default gateway is not set
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That is the part, why you have problems
>
>
>
>
>
> > Host =A0 =A0 =A0 Gateway =A0 =A0 =A0 Last Use =A0 Total Uses =A0 =A0Int=
erface
> > ICMP redirect cache is empty
>
> > # show ip interface brief
>
> > Interface =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0IP-Address =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
OK? =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Method
> > Status =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Protocol
> > FastEthernet0 =A0 =A0 xxx.xxx.208.80 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yes =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0manual
> > uo =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 up
> > Serial0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0xxx.xxx.208.74 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Ye=
s
> > manual =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 up =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0up
>
> > #show access-lists
> > gives no output
>
> > #show run on the 1721 =A0 =A0 contains ip related lines
>
> > no ip =A0routing
> > ip subnet-zero
> > ip classless
>
> > Under Seril0
>
> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 xxx.xxx.208.74
>
> and this why it is failing. You can't set your default gateway to your
> own interface address. Either you set it to the interface or you set it
> to the next hop. Preferably the latter or a combination like:
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial 0 xxx.xxx.208.73
>
> > if any of this is useful.
>
> luke
> --
> Da ich =A0lauter solche unsinnichen kommentare bekomme =A0wer ich mich je=
tzt
> na den verwalter der news wenden und eine untersuchung einleiten lassen
> wiel hier man nur noch solchen unsin an atworten bekommt und ich setze
> dem jezt ein enden =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 --J.Daub in <b04dcl$n...@news.=
online.de>

* "Steve Christensen" hackte in den Rechenknecht:
> Thanks for the suggestions.    I tried them and this is now the status
> of the 1721.
>
> #show run
>
> interface FastEthernet0
>  ip address xx.xxx.208.80 255.255.255.0

Really? Is this the same subnet as below 208.73? Then it is bound to fail.
If you could refrain from using fake xxx-addresses one could tell more
easily.

>
> I can ping from my local network to the .80, but not out anywhere.
>
That's not the whole truth, according to your ping tests.

> Steve C.
>

luke
-- 
Ich hatte eigentlich keine Probleme mit Mozilla, wenn auch meine
Defaulteinstellungen "Mozilla/8.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.9; Virus 98)"
nicht mit allen Seiten funktionieren mag.
-- Andreas Kolbach in d.c.s.m

This problem has been resolved.   Network addresses and routing tables
fixed.

On Mar 28, 3:44=A0pm, Lukas Schratz <lukas.schr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * "Steve Christensen" hackte in den Rechenknecht:
>
> > Thanks for the suggestions. =A0 =A0I tried them and this is now the sta=
tus
> > of the 1721.
>
> > #show run
>
> > interface FastEthernet0
> > =A0ip address xx.xxx.208.80 255.255.255.0
>
> Really? Is this the same subnet as below 208.73? Then it is bound to fail=
..
> If you could refrain from using fake xxx-addresses one could tell more
> easily.
>
>
>
> > I can ping from my local network to the .80, but not out anywhere.
>
> That's not the whole truth, according to your ping tests.
>
> > Steve C.
>
> luke
> --
> Ich hatte eigentlich keine Probleme mit Mozilla, wenn auch meine
> Defaulteinstellungen "Mozilla/8.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.9; Virus 98)"
> nicht mit allen Seiten funktionieren mag.
> -- Andreas Kolbach in d.c.s.m

no hint what you did? This newsgroup lives from user contribution...

Am 29.03.2011 09:48, schrieb "Steve Christensen":
>
> This problem has been resolved.   Network addresses and routing tables
> fixed.
>

That may be help me a lot, Thanks for the comments that you told above.

Thanks a lot, I think the comments above may help me to solve my problem!