Static routing problem

Kai123

Hey,

This is potentially embarrassing but im a little stuck.

On packet tracer, I have 2 networks. Network 1 can ping a host on network 2, as soon as the packet from network 2 hits the router to go back, the router drops it. Its obviously the static route but everything is set up correctly (or so it seems )

R1

S 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
S 192.168.2.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.3.0
is directly connected, Serial0/0
C 192.168.3.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
C 192.168.4.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
C 192.168.5.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/1

R2

C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.2.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
S 192.168.3.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.2.0
is directly connected, Serial0/0
S 192.168.4.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.2.0

Im sure its staring me in the face. This is my first attempt at static routing. Once this is fixed its on to RIP and then thats me done for ICND1!

Kai.

gouki2005

192.168.5.0/24 this route is missing from R2 so check that.

greenerek

Remember that even if Router 1 knows route to network B(destination) it doesn't mean that Router 2 knows the route to Network A(from which you started ping)
I Agree with gouki 2005 check the route 192.168.5.0/24 on the Router 2

seekrit

KAI123, remember that packet tracer has the simulation mode where you can watch packets transverse the topology and read explanations at each layer. If you open up the dropped packet you'll get an explanation of why it was dropped.

notgoing2fail

What IP addresses are you trying to ping?

For R1 it says 192.168.5.0 is directly connected? So why is nothing showing up for that network on R2?

hermeszdata

Kai123 wrote: »

Hey,

This is potentially embarrassing but im a little stuck.

On packet tracer, I have 2 networks. Network 1 can ping a host on network 2, as soon as the packet from network 2 hits the router to go back, the router drops it. Its obviously the static route but everything is set up correctly (or so it seems )

R1

S 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
S 192.168.2.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.3.0
is directly connected, Serial0/0
C 192.168.3.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
C 192.168.4.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
C 192.168.5.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/1

R2

C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.2.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
S 192.168.3.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.2.0
is directly connected, Serial0/0
S 192.168.4.0/24 [1/0] via 192.168.2.0

Im sure its staring me in the face. This is my first attempt at static routing. Once this is fixed its on to RIP and then thats me done for ICND1!

Kai.

It always helps if you include the command line config.

Looking at what you have provided above, it appears more a net address mis-match!

On R1, you show 2 WAN interfaces, s0/0 and s0/1, and one LAN interface, Fa1/0.

Fa1/0 is on network 192.168.4.0/24 - not an issue
S0/0 is on networks 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.3.0/24 ???? (how can this be? S 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, S0/0! 192.168.1.0 is R2's LAN interface!)
S0/1 is no network 192.168.5.0

On R2, your output shows 1 WAN, s0/0 and 1 LAN interface, Fa0/0
Fa1/0 is on network 192.168.1.0/24 - not an issue
S0/0 is on network 192.168.2.0

Based on the above, I am guessing that the s0/0 interfaces on both routers are the directly connected interfaces. If that is the case, teh IP address should be configured either as 192.168.2.0/24 or 192.168.3.0/24, or more appropriately:

R1

int s0/0
ip address 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.252
 
ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 s0/0

R2

int s0/0
ip address 192.168.2.2 255.255.255.252
 
ip route 192.168.4.0 255.255.255.0 s0/0

Two directly connected interfaces cannot communicate it they are in different networks/sub-networks!

It is always best to make sure that directly devices are able to communicate before trying to establish routes (the same thing applies with applying ACLs. You do this from the routers' Command Line Interface.

But, again, I base this observation on the limited, confusing information you posted.

Kai123

hermeszdata wrote: »

But, again, I base this observation on the limited, confusing information you posted.

Believe me, I am just as confused as you are!!

I could of explained the problem a bit better. I have another network on serial0/1 on R1. I added one static link that should of fixed it but failed. I checked the default gateway of the devices on R2 and guess what! 192.158

I was getting confused on how the router looks at its table and routes the packet. Eventually it was a matter of "get to 5 via 3, get to 6 via 5, get to 7 via 6" etc. It was a learning experience, and I am geninely looking forward to using RIP and learn to love some routing protocols

Thank you all for the input! This forum is very friendly and helpful, and is definately one of my favourate forums.

Kai.

hermeszdata

Kai123 wrote: »

Believe me, I am just as confused as you are!!

I could of explained the problem a bit better. I have another network on serial0/1 on R1. I added one static link that should of fixed it but failed. I checked the default gateway of the devices on R2 and guess what! 192.158

I was getting confused on how the router looks at its table and routes the packet. Eventually it was a matter of "get to 5 via 3, get to 6 via 5, get to 7 via 6" etc. It was a learning experience, and I am geninely looking forward to using RIP and learn to love some routing protocols

Thank you all for the input! This forum is very friendly and helpful, and is definately one of my favourate forums.

Kai.

So, it was mis-matched addresses on connected interfaces. Glad you were able to sort things out.

Something to remember when asking for assistance ...

1. The more information you provide, generally, the easier is is to get effective help.

2. Provide the configs for every device in the topology. (in the case you presented this would mean interface configurations for all interfaces and the routing protocols used on each router.)

By providing this information, the first response could have resulted in the correct solution.

Good luck as you move forward.