RIPv2 question

bon_chan

Hi guys,

I have a technical question for you.
My classmate made the following topology under GNS3.



R1, R3 and R6 are considered as host machine (as qemu hosts doesnt work properly under windows). So they have ip routing disabled.

She activated the RIP version 2 on R2,R4 and R5

First there was a link between R2 and R5.
So R1,R3 and R6 could ping each other.

Then she removed the link between R2 and R5 (to check that routers update their routing tables well).

But she did it, she can't ping R3 from R1 anymore.

Here are the tests she did :
Ping :
R1 to R3=>KO
R3 to R1=>KO
R1 to R2 =>OK
R1 to R4 =>OK
R2 to R4=>OK
R3 to R4=>OK
R3 to R6=>OK

On R1 to R3:
traceroute 128.1.2.1
1ms 128.1.1.2
*

On R3 to R1:
traceroute 128.1.1.1
192.168.4.1
192.168.4.2
*

Here are the routing tables of R2 and R4

---

R4

---

Gateway of last resort is not set

128.1.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
R 128.1.0.0/16 [120/1] via 192.168.4.2, 00:00:08, FastEthernet0/1
[120/1] via 192.168.3.1, 00:00:13, FastEthernet0/0
C 128.1.2.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
C 192.168.4.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
R 89.0.0.0/8 [120/1] via 192.168.4.2, 00:00:08, FastEthernet0/1
[120/1] via 192.168.3.1, 00:00:13, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.3.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0

---

R2

---

Gateway of last resort is not set

128.1.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
C 128.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
R 128.1.0.0/16 [120/1] via 192.168.3.2, 00:00:14, FastEthernet0/1
R 192.168.4.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.3.2, 00:00:14, FastEthernet0/1
89.0.0.0/16 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 89.89.0.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.3.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1


And here are the rip running config of each router :

R2
128.1.0.0
89.0.0.0
192.168.3.0

R4
128.1.0.0
192.168.3.0
192.168.4.0

R5
128.1.0.0
89.0.0.0
192.168.4.0

PS : Network addresses for R1,R3 and R6 are class B on purpose.

I had the same config with different adresses (but still from the same class), and that works fine.

But I can't figure why hers doesn't. Does some of you know why?

Thanks and sorry for the long long post to read. But this is breaking my brain.

Ho no the image import didn't work. I don't have a link of the jpg. Can someone tell me how to insert a jpg from my computer? Looks like we cannot.

alan2308

We can't see images that are stored on your hard drive.

Hypntick

Can upload somewhere like tinypic and then link from that. Or any of the number of image hosting sites out there.

bon_chan

Hypntick wrote: »

Can upload somewhere like tinypic and then link from that. Or any of the number of image hosting sites out there.

Thank you the image is now displayed!!!

jwashington1981

Did you mean R1, R3, and R6 are hosts? You said R1, R2, and R6 were hosts yet you said that R2 had RIP version 2 activated on it.

Looks like something is wrong on your link between R2 and R4. If you look at the traceroutes you posted for both of them, they both seem to want to go through R5 for some reason rather than go between R2 and R4 as R3 is attempting to use the 192.168.4.1 interface on R4 and then it goes to R5 via 192.168.4.2 instead of using the 192.168.3.2 interface on R4. And the same goes with R1 as it stops as soon as it goes to R2 and doesn't even try to use the 192.168.3.1 interface but rather wants to use the 89.89.88.1 interface on R2 which is not connected. Check the link between R2 and R4 for any misconfiguration.

Edit: Looking at your routing table, I see that both R2 and R4 have the 192.168.3.0 route in their routing table as they are both directly connected to it. However, I notice that R2 is missing a route in its routing table. R2 does not have the 128.1.2.0 network in its routing table. Have her run a show ip interface to make sure that one of the interfaces on that link isn't administratively down. It could be that she simply forgot to perform a no shut on one of the interfaces on the link between R2 and R4.

Edit 2: I also notice that 128.1.0.0 is being shown as a classful network in the routing tables yet it has a /24 in the diagram. Did she forget to use the command no auto-summary? If you could, could you post the full running config for both R2 and R4?

bon_chan

jwashington1981 wrote: »

Did you mean R1, R3, and R6 are hosts? You said R1, R2, and R6 were hosts yet you said that R2 had RIP version 2 activated on it.

Yes I meant R3, sorry.
I just edited it.

Looks like something is wrong on your link between R2 and R4. If you look at the traceroutes you posted for both of them, they both seem to want to go through R5 for some reason rather than go between R2 and R4 as R3 is attempting to use the 192.168.4.1 interface on R4 and then it goes to R5 via 192.168.4.2 instead of using the 192.168.3.2 interface on R4. And the same goes with R1 as it stops as soon as it goes to R2 and doesn't even try to use the 192.168.3.1 interface but rather wants to use the 89.89.88.1 interface on R2 which is not connected. Check the link between R2 and R4 for any misconfiguration.

Yes that is what I found it weird, why would they go through R5?

Edit: Looking at your routing table, I see that both R2 and R4 have the 192.168.3.0 route in their routing table as they are both directly connected to it. However, I notice that R2 is missing a route in its routing table. R2 does not have the 128.1.2.0 network in its routing table. Have her run a show ip interface to make sure that one of the interfaces on that link isn't administratively down. It could be that she simply forgot to perform a no shut on one of the interfaces on the link between R2 and R4.

Edit 2: I also notice that 128.1.0.0 is being shown as a classful network in the routing tables yet it has a /24 in the diagram. Did she forget to use the command no auto-summary? If you could, could you post the full running config for both R2 and R4?

Ok I will ask her to do it, and post the results asap.
Thanx

jwashington1981

Did she get everything straightened out?

bon_chan

jwashington1981 wrote: »

Did she get everything straightened out?

Yes she finally got it to work!! She told me she made a mistake in R3's interface configuration.

Thank you for your replies!!!!

jwashington1981

bon_chan wrote: »

Yes she finally got it to work!! She told me she made a mistake in R3's interface configuration.

Thank you for your replies!!!!

You're welcome. I'm glad we could help.