IRC Logs

Network: freenode Channel: #cisco

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.irclog.org

[20:57]<djzwzvnz>so when you config ISDN you set the username in global config and then you specify remote-name username in the dialer config?
[20:57]<djzwzvnz>if you want to use pap/chap
[20:57]<usnzt10>correct
[20:58]<vz2ufzzzsz>DogWater: correct
[20:58]<vcul>User25, well the answer should have either been remote or local :)
[20:59]<usnzt10>http://pastebin.ca/81610
[21:00]<usnzt10>its two remote routers
[21:00]<usnzt10>over a p2p fr
[21:01]<usnzt10>hopefully everything went ok with pastebin
[21:01]<usnzt10>tabulrasa any ideas
[21:02]<usnzt10>tkup you here
[21:02]<usnzt10>anybody have ideas
[21:02]<vcul>User530, what does show frame-relay inverse return?
[21:05]<usnzt10>bad command
[21:07]<djzwzvnz>http://pastebin.ca/81618
[21:07]<djzwzvnz>does that look ok to everyone?
[21:07]<usnzqt>http://pastebin.ca/81619
[21:07]<usnzt10>could it be the hardware
[21:08]<vz2ufzzzsz>wrong lmi type?
[21:08]<-- zzzfjs xzs fuyv (>out")
[21:08]<usnzt10>both lmi should be default
[21:08]<vz2ufzzzsz>cisco?
[21:09]<usnzt10>yup
[21:09]<vz2ufzzzsz>have you tried ietf ?
[21:09]<z2zzvus>riddle me this... what is the point of the netmask in the "ip nat pool" command
[21:09]<z2zzvus>you're giving it a range of ip's to use as the pool.... whats the netmask for?
[21:09]<usnzt10>yes - still didnt work
[21:09]<usnzt10>could this be hdware
[21:09]<z2zzvus>in my case i'm actually only giving it one IP... so should my netmask be /32?
[21:09]<gndyvx>jbartus: the mask do use for the virtual ip secondaries it craetes
[21:10]<gndyvx>so when to route the packet and when to send it via L2
[21:10]<gndyvx>so it's the mask isn't defining the size of the pool, but the real subnet mask of the ip addresses
[21:10]<vcul>User530, did you try 'show frame-relay inver?'?
[21:10]<z2zzvus>what if i have a /29 that i'm only using for loopbacks and nat-behind
[21:10]<gndyvx>use /29 with one ip address
[21:10]<z2zzvus>so it basically has no subnetmask because its not going out any interface
[21:11]<gndyvx>and i better not see you create a pool with the same ip addresses assigned to an interface
[21:11]<gndyvx>jbartus: eh?
[21:11]<gndyvx>why nat to something that isn't going out any interface?
[21:11]<z2zzvus>no thats the point, of the 6 ip's one is a nat-behind and two are loopbaks (with /32 masks) and the rest are unused
[21:11]<gndyvx>you lost me
[21:11]<z2zzvus>the actual wan connection has its own address/mask
[21:12]<gndyvx>like a /30 or /31
[21:12]<djzwzvnz>has anyone done vpn on windows mobile 5 yet?
[21:12]<djzwzvnz>biggest piece of crap ever
[21:12]<z2zzvus>isp gives you a t1 and a /29, you use 10.x on your lan and the /30 for the wan... the /29 i'm just using for loopbaks and nat-behind addys
[21:12]<gndyvx>define nat-behind
[21:13]<z2zzvus>something for nat to use as the source when the 10.x lan people go porn downloading
[21:13]<gndyvx>ok
[21:13]<gndyvx>the nat pool address
[21:13]<z2zzvus>yea
[21:13]<gndyvx>in this case it really doesn't matter
[21:13]<z2zzvus>cool, thats what i thought
[21:13]<usnzt10>nemith is my hardware faulty
[21:13]<gndyvx>if you are using /32s on the loopbacks I would do a /32 on the pool
[21:14]<fjzvxnz>ok, is there a way to make a dial-peer ring a bunch of extensions and establish the call with the first extension to pick up?
[21:14]<gndyvx>User530: is your refridgerator running?
[21:14]<z2zzvus>so it would matter if i had a larger-than-/30 on the wan and i was going to use one of my wan ip's as the natpool right?
[21:14]<gndyvx>loather: a dial-peer?
[21:14]<gndyvx>loather: you can do with a hunt-group on CME
[21:14]<gndyvx>jbartus: yes
[21:15]<fjzvxnz>yeah, i don't have a callmanager box though :(
[21:15]<zczynf>wont a hunt group ring individuals untill someone answers
[21:15]<zczynf>he wants them all to ring at same time i believe
[21:15]<gndyvx>but since it will always be routed to the next hop and not directly sent to the client it doesn't matter
[21:15]<dzzc1lyvn>hmm
[21:15]<fjzvxnz>just the one router, and i want each extension in my house to ring on a call
[21:15]<dzzc1lyvn>loather: I think I can get callmanager..
[21:15]<gndyvx>akriel: you can do a broadcast group
[21:15]<fjzvxnz>right now it's configured to ring just the one extension
[21:15]<z2zzvus>nemith: thanks
[21:16]<zczynf>loather, what nemith said
[21:16]<fjzvxnz>Dark3Lite: i'd prefer to do it without any additional software
[21:16]<vcul>aww
[21:16]<gndyvx>well and CCM is an appliance
[21:16]<dzzc1lyvn>you would need hunt groups for sure..
[21:16]<dzzc1lyvn>nemith the soft..
[21:16]<fjzvxnz>ok, well, then without any additional hardware appliances ;)
[21:16]<fjzvxnz>it's bad enough i have to run asterisk for sip registry :(
[21:17]<gndyvx>you haven't tried what we discuessed before/
[21:17]<fjzvxnz>hm?
[21:17]<gndyvx>i sent you a link on doing sip registry on IOS
[21:18]<gndyvx>it is possible and i've spoke with people who have done it
[21:18]<fjzvxnz>you did? i must have missed the url.
[21:18]<fjzvxnz>couple days ago?
[21:20]<gndyvx>long time ago
[21:20]<fjzvxnz>hm, that must have been before i scored the 3600.
[21:20]<gndyvx>hmm CME can't do broadcast huntgroups :(
[21:20]<djzwzvnz>anyone ever seen an error like this?
[21:20]<djzwzvnz>mppe required but peer negotiation failed
[21:21]<fjzvxnz>i remember there was something with registry commands that I couldn't do 'cause the IOS version wasn't high enough on the 2600
[21:21]<fjzvxnz>i'll search around again and see what i can come up with
[21:21]<gndyvx>ah
[21:21]<gndyvx>maybe that is it
[21:21]<gndyvx>i think the commands are bit newer
[21:23]<fjzvxnz>well, i threw the latest 12.4 train on the 3640, so hopefully it'll have what i need.
[21:23]<sazdn>it will have plenty of slow i'll tell you that
[21:23]<z2zzvus>nemith: shit, its not letting me use 255.255.255.255 or 32
[21:23]<dzzc1lyvn>ohh the Cisco IP Communicator Release 2.0
[21:23]<gndyvx>be wild, do 12.3.9(T)

Back to #cisco
Or go to some related logs:
#gentoo
#debian
#netbsd
#gentoo
#gentoo