Packet Tracer Training: Need help

Here is the scenario I want to happen:

PC-01 <-> Switch-01 <-> R1 <-> Modem-01 <-> Cloud-01 <-> Switch-Cloud <-> Cloud-02 <-> Modem-02 <-> R2 <-> Switch-02 <-> PC-02

I manage to let the R1 ping R2 through cloud interfaces. But i'm still having trouble how to let the PC-01 ping the other end of this connection (PC-02). can anyone help?

here is what i did for both routers:
R1
- I set the
CGe 0/1 = 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
CFe 0/0 = 200.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
RIPv2 = Network 192.168.1.0, 200.168.1.0

R2
- I set the
CGe 0/1 = 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
CFe 0/0 = 200.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
RIPv2 = Network 192.168.1.0, 200.168.1.0

- I also did the 'no shutdown' on all interfaces on both routers.
- copy run start

what is exactly the setup for WAN, I am just trying this out kind of design, but what is mostly used in real world?

*need help on this please, i am studying for WAN, detailed configuration for both hardware and CLI, can be very helpful, thank you very much in advance.

feels like I am noob or dumb, but my point is I am trying to learn.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

ProjectRK™

thanks for the reply, is gns3 are good netsim? are they realistic and less bug? also the stuff inside it is up to date with current technologies?

ProjectRK™

Legal Note: Because gns3 uses real cisco ios files, you must use an authorized cisco.com account with access to these files in order to download them. They aren't freely available to just anyone.

ouchy!!! well, i better stick to what i have then, back to packet tracer lol

zrockstar

Packet Tracer is far from worthless. Don't think you have to set up GNS3 just based off of one guy's opinion. Plenty of people use packet tracer as their only source of labing for CCNA.

PC509

zrockstar wrote: »

Packet Tracer is far from worthless. Don't think you have to set up GNS3 just based off of one guy's opinion. Plenty of people use packet tracer as their only source of labing for CCNA.

I agree. I actually use both. GNS3 can't do switching properly. Packet Tracer is great for learning simulations. I've been able to do things quickly in packet tracer that would take me a lot longer with GNS3.

That said, I do prefer GNS3 for the fact that is an emulator and not just a simulator. It offers full functionality of the IOS. I have some physical routers, as well, so I have the IOS from them in GNS3. So, I'm using 3 different ways. All three offer their strengths and bring it all together. I can run more virtual routers in various configurations (and WIC/NM's) with GNS3. Packet Tracer really does fill in the gaps, though. Plus, there are a lot of exercises floating around in PT format. That really helps.

PC509

phoeneous wrote: »

Sure, if you want buggy labs. And yes, that is said from experience. I used PT for well over a year before switching to gns3 and real equipment.

Yea, you can't use it for everything (I don't think I could go full CCNA with it exclusively), but as an additional resource to the others it works great. I have the physical equipment to go along, but putting a lab on a laptop and studying while traveling is awesome.

I do wish there was something that could run on the iPad. It seems like it's make a great study tool to have a simulator (doubt you could emulate much with it's low horsepower). Packet Tracer would be very valuable in a situation like that...

Besides, GNS3 requires actual IOS images, and physical hardware can add some $$ to your studies. Not something everyone has. PT is a great resource, but it's not perfect. Nor are a lot of things, really.

zrockstar

phoeneous wrote: »

Sure, if you want buggy labs. And yes, that is said from experience. I used PT for well over a year before switching to gns3 and real equipment.

I will agree, PT does have some quirks, but it has gotten a lot better. There used to be a time when you couldn't even int range on PT, but a lot of that stuff has been changed. If you haven't used it in a while, you might be surprised if you took another look at it. I mean it is going to look the same, but you will probably find that it is noticeably smoother in function.