Book now with code EOY2025
172.17.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 12 subnets, 2 masks D 172.17.34.4/32 [90/3193856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:09, Serial0/0 D 172.17.34.3/32 [90/298268416] via 172.17.12.2, 00:04:56, Serial0/0 D 172.17.34.0/24 [90/3193856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:09, Serial0/0 D 172.17.23.2/32 [90/297756416] via 172.17.3.1, 00:05:11, Tunnel13 D 172.17.23.3/32 [90/2681856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:32, Serial0/0 D 172.17.23.0/24 [90/2681856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:11, Serial0/0 D 172.17.4.0/24 [90/3321856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:08, Serial0/0 D 172.17.3.0/24 [90/2809856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:11, Serial0/0 D 172.17.2.0/24 [90/2297856] via 172.17.12.2, 00:05:11, Serial0/0");
networker050184 wrote: » Look into PPP peer neighbor-route.
jason_lunde wrote: » Ya, you were right, they did want the ipsec vti tunnels preferred. I ended up having to mess with the tunnel interfaces bandwidth and delay metrics to get them preferred over the serial links. I was referencing a cisco article while doing it, and it basically said to make certain that by messin with those, you dont knock the other routes (serial links in this case) out of the topology table by way of the feasibility condition.
liven wrote: » Did you use VTI tunnels for all 6 tunnels?
jason_lunde wrote: » I did 4 tunnels...over the fast Ethernet "wan" cloud: R1-->R2 R1-->R3 R4-->R2 R4-->R3
liven wrote: » Ok I feel dumb because this is definitely only 4 tunnels... However the tunnel from R1 -> R2 R4 -> R3 Are over the serial links... Or at least that is the only thing that makes sense to me. I am using VTI tunnels for those. I still need to tweak metrics to make the tunnels over the "WAN" cloud preferred.
jason_lunde wrote: » ya I did all the tunnels over the ethernet segment. I treated the serial links as dedicated leased lines.
Use code EOY2025 to receive $250 off your 2025 certification boot camp!