Dialer profiles

kpjungle

Hello,

Was reading a bit on Cisco's site about dialer profiles, and came across an ip route statement i dont quite understand why "they" did it that way.



Basically, its a router, connecting through ISDN to a central router.

It has an ethernet int:
interface Ethernet0
ip address 172.22.96.1 255.255.255.0

and a Dialer interface:
interface Dialer1
ip address 172.22.85.2 255.255.255.0


But howcome, it has these route statements:
ip route 172.22.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.22.80.0
ip route 172.22.80.0 255.255.255.0 Dialer1

The central router has IP 172.22.85.1.

Wouldnt a connection, ie. a ping to 172.22.85.1 hit the 172.22.0.0 route first, then hit the 172.22.80.0 route afterwards, which initiates the Dialer 1?

Im not sure why one would do this?

Unfortunally I only have Boson to try out ISDN scenarios with, which leaves me a bit in the dark.

Thanks in advance!

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk801/tk133/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080093c2e.shtml#table1

APA

172.16.85.0 would be considered a directly connected network..... so no it wouldn't hit the first static route command as the directly connected network and route would be more specific......

The two routes are justifiable..... they want all other 172.16 traffic to go out ethernet interface but anything for specifically 172.16.80 to go out the dialer interface...... again remembering that the most specific matches are used for routing.

Hope this helps

kpjungle

Hi, it does help alot..

You mean 172.22, right?

And you are right, after the dialer1 got a no shutdown, it appears with 172.22.85.0 as a connected network as well.

Even without the two static routes, traffic destined for the lan (172.22.96.0) would go out the ethernet.

So then again, if ethernet is taken care of, and 172.22.85.0 (the link between the routers), then why two ip routes, to catch all remaining traffic?

Wouldnt a single "ip route 172.22.0.0 255.255.0.0 dialer1" or "ip route 172.22.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.22.85.1" do the same?


Thanks.