Lab setup problem with switches communicating with each other.

Ok this is the lab setup for INE ccna course the only difference is that I do not have router 5(it's in the mail as I type speak and it's also another 1760). I have added my ip addresses according to INE. Now my problem is that I can't ping anything that is not directly connected. So I can ping the routers and switches that are connected to each other but I can't ping anything else. All I have is basic setup on each device but I still should be able to ping each device with any other device right? Also the port lights on the ports that are connecting the switches together are not lit up. Hopefully this is enough info for you guys to start me in the right direction. All cables are good, I made them all but checked when I was done and have taken them all off and checked them again to make sure.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Roguetadhg

Are you sure all the switches trunks are up?
As well as to make sure you have Cross-over cabling between the switches.

What's the running-config of the switches? Please copy them to us.

This is what I'm hearing for R4, for example:
I can ping Sw2. I can ping R2. I can't ping Sw1, or Sw3, or R3, Host, or R1.

gbdavidx

You have rip enabled on the routers? or a form of routing protocol?

sratakhin

What are the routers R3 and R5 supposed to do? They cannot be connected to a single network segment (192.168.1.x - vlan1) with two different interfaces, unless you use switching modules.

DANMOH009

gbdavidx wrote: »

You have rip enabled on the routers? or a form of routing protocol?

If your trying to ping a router to anon directly connected router then gbdavid is right you can't do it without a routing protocol/static or default route in place

AintRite

Roguetadhg wrote: »

As well as to make sure you have Cross-over cabling between the switches.

LOL, damn I thought I had all of the physical stuff right. let me make some crossover cables and get back with you guys. I can't believe I did this.

AintRite

I can't believe some of the stupid questions I ask on here. That fixed the problem....At least I didn't ask why my R4 wasn't able to be pinged. I had typed the wrong ip address 192.198.1.5 instead of 192.168.1.5. One good thing though all the mistakes I am doing now will definitely help me when I get my big boy pants on and start working out in the real world.

jsb515

no stupid questions here, just a learning experience

wes allen

A lot of what I know came from fixing my own mistakes...

AintRite

Well at this rate I will be pretty good at troubleshooting by the time I'm ready to enter the networking world.LOL

Roguetadhg

The fixing our own mistakes is how I learned, too.

You'd be amazed at what you forget doing, or mis-typed.

NewInBussines

There are no stupid questions, you must learn from every experience and should be very carefully while troubleshooting.

AintRite

Yeah I know but sometimes I forget the easy steps and when I don't I still over looked the obvious. Like I said though I'm learning alot from my mistakes, which is always a good thing.

AintRite

Ok, so now that we have that problem solved I have a little more technical one.

So I have this 2924m-xl (the other two are 3550s) switch which is a layer 2 switch and from what I have read I can only have 1 active (up/up) vlan at one time. Now in the diagram below I have two VLANs (100 and 101) I need to be able to connect to, am I not going to be able to do this without...

1. getting another layer 2 switch
2. getting another layer 3 switch
3. or configure VLAN 100 and VLAN 101 and change VLANs everytime I need to do something on a different VLAN.
4. Is there another way in configuration that I have missed.

georgemc

AintRite wrote: »

4. Is there another way in configuration that I have missed.

Revisit the difference between a VLAN and an SVI(what most Cisco folks think of as an "interface vlan" or the "management" VLAN) in your study materials.

So yes, while the 2924XL is not the best choice for studying for the CCENT/CCNA, it is capable of supporting multiple VLANs.

NewInBussines

Probably 2924 it doesn't support multiple vlan interfaces,but it can support multiple vlans.A vlan interface is layer 3 while a vlan is layer 2.
I hope I am clear.

AintRite

So I have been working on this most of the day, with this 2924xl. I have read two cisco documents (and many other threads I found on the net) on configuring it and everything I have read points to the fact that I can't have multiple VLANs that communicate at the same time. Sure I can add them to the switch and set up the ports but I try to ping from either port and the destination host are unreachable. I got pretty frustrated today and order another 3550 anyway but I still want to see if I can get this to work, I'm to hardheaded don't to quit on anything though. Maybe one of you can point me in the right direction a little bit harder but just not all the way.

BTW my 3550s are working fine.

Roguetadhg

I was waiting on configurations still

bryguy

AintRite wrote: »

LOL, damn I thought I had all of the physical stuff right. let me make some crossover cables and get back with you guys. I can't believe I did this.

Relevant thread relating to crossover and straight through cables... http://www.techexams.net/forums/ccnp/42951-straight-cable-used-trunk-line.html

AintRite

Roguetadhg wrote: »

I was waiting on configurations still

what configs would you like to see?

bryguy wrote: »

Relevant thread relating to crossover and straight through cables... http://www.techexams.net/forums/ccnp/42951-straight-cable-used-trunk-line.html

Yeah believe it or not I do know what and where the straight through and crossover cables are used for. Sometimes...well most of the time I get in a big hurry and try to find some huge problem that is causing the disturbance because it's networking and there is nothing ever easy to fix in networking.LOL

Roguetadhg

Okay. I went through your last post with some thought. Here's my questions:

1. Are you using those routers as hosts only?
...Or are they running like a router on a stick - configuration?

If it's running as a normal router, you don't need to put it as a single VLAN. It'll work with virtual ports for each VLAN. In this case, two.
Router1:
Fa0/0.100
- encapsulation dot1q 100
- ip address ip subnetmask [Network 100]
Fa0/0.101
- encapsulation dot1q 101
- ip address ip subnetmask [Network 101]

SW1:
Fa0/1 (R1)
switchport mode trunk
switchport mode encapsulation dot1q
Fa0/3 (R3)
switchport mode trunk
switchport mode encapsulation dot1q
Fa0/13 (SW2)
switchport mode trunk
switchport mode encapsulation dot1q
Fa0/24 (Host)
switchport mode access
switchport access vlan 100

Not sure where fa0/5 is going...

If the routers are acting as hosts...
Change the switch ports to access, with the respective VLANs attached to the ports like fa0/24

You can't (Well, you can... but it's just not good juju) have VLANs leak into each other. A router will be needed, somewhere, to be the router on a stick. This will allow VLAN 101 to communicate to VLAN 100.

Edit: Found this thread: http://www.techexams.net/forums/ccna-ccent/21771-router-stick-configuration-vlans-several-things.html

AintRite

they are running as hosts at this point.

Roguetadhg

Can you give us a running-config of of R1 and SW1?

AintRite

I think I might have been doing to much thinking, give me a second. I think it might have just hit me in the face like a ton of bricks.

All of the reading and studying I have been doing might not be enough, this is starting to get ridiculous and frustrating on my part. Now I go back and read georgemc, Roguetadhg, and NewInBussines posts and they all make sense now. I was leaving some of the syntax out, but when I finally noticed what I had done it all came together. I'm starting to wonder if I will ever be good enough to enter this field.

You guys start off like this, I'm pretty frustrated at this point with these petty mistakes I'm making. I'm learning alot but I feel I shouldn't be making them anyway. I guess it will come with expierence.

Roguetadhg

1) If you want the router as a host-only: no ip routing
This will turn off the routing protocols for the router and make it as a host.

2) you don't have those host ports on the switch configured to a VLAN. Easy way to think about it: Anything that a normal user can touch (hosts), needs to be an access port, as well as setup to a VLAN.
- Anything that attaches to other networking equipment (Except in this case, the routers.) will be set to trunking.

See my response above for the example code.

xXErebuS

Not really sure why no one has pointed this out; but you cant assign inconsistent IP addresses to VLANs; only subnets so you cant say

192.168.1.3 belongs to vlan 101; 192.168.1.5 belongs to vlan 100; 192.168.1.6 belongs to vlan 101....

do you understand?

You don't need trunk lines if your not doing router on a stick; and you still need IP routing enabled even if your setting them as host ports... whether this is at each router or at a default gateway on each vlan / subnet.

Roguetadhg

no ip routing turns off routing protocols for that router. It makes it something that can ping/telnet. But leaves any decision making (routing) to another device.

xXErebuS

Roguetadhg wrote: »

no ip routing turns off routing protocols for that router. It makes it something that can ping/telnet. But leaves any decision making (routing) to another device.

Your going to have to have routing somewhere; how is vlan 100 going to know how to get to vlan 101 if they are not directly connected?

Roguetadhg

@xXErebuS: I understand where you're coming from. He will need a router to route between both vlans (note the subinterfaces in my example codes). He wanted to run the routers 1/2 as a host. Not as a router - to route.

I didn't clarify that he would need to have a router as a router to make the connection between the networks. He's already stated he's going back to look at the configurations and the setup. I'm sure he'll find it out

@AintRite: And yes, everyone starts off not knowing. You need to do and ask questions to know something. It all takes time, and practice. Look at it this way.. did you learn anything from this thread yet? If so, You're already a couple steps ahead than what you would've been without this thread.

xXErebuS

Roguetadhg wrote: »

@xXErebuS: I understand where you're coming from. He will need a router to route between both vlans (note the subinterfaces in my example codes). He wanted to run the routers 1/2 as a host. Not as a router - to route.

I didn't clarify that he would need to have a router as a router to make the connection between the networks. He's already stated he's going back to look at the configurations and the setup. I'm sure he'll find it out

@AintRite: And yes, everyone starts off not knowing. You need to do and ask questions to know something. It all takes time, and practice. Look at it this way.. did you learn anything from this thread yet? If so, You're already a couple steps ahead than what you would've been without this thread.

Before you do anything you have to fix your subnetting assignment issues; you have overlapping subnets/vlans.... I wouldnt do the no ip routing; its kind of the point of a having router; otherwise you should connect directly into a switch.... as far as having devices; buy a $20 NIC before paying for a router to use as a host.

AintRite

And this thread keeps getting more informational for me. I'm just following along the INE videos so at this point we are just making sure that all the devices on each vlan can contact each other.