2600 series router using SDM
tg
I'm trying to get PC's on a LAN to access a default gateway adsl router so they can surf
the internet but I'm stuck at the Cisco 2615XM router
Here is my setup:
small LAN of PC's all connected by cables to a hub, all ip's set on 192.168.1.xx
Cisco 2615XM router also connected to the hub on Fastethernet port 0/1, set as as
192.168.1.70, set as LAN
Cisco 2651XM Fastethernet port 0/0, DHCP set port to 192.168.1.64 set as WAN, connected by
cable to Cisco wireless access point (configured as a universal workgroup bridge).
The Cisco access point ip is 192.168.1.66 and it is connected wirelessly to a non-cisco
adsl router on the internet (default gateway 192.168.1.254).
I'm trying to get the PC's on the LAN to access the default gateway router so they can
surf the internet but I'm stuck at the 2615XM router. The PC can see both FastEthernet
ports but I can't get the PC to see the Cisco access point on 192.168.1.66.
In SDM/Interfaces and Connections I did Test Connection but the test fails at Checking
Exit Interface, the recommended actions say: 'Select User-Specified option or add host
specific/network specific/default route through this interface and retest connection'. I'm
not sure where I'm supposed to go in SDM to do this, I've tried different things but fail
to create the route so if anyone can help me put the right settings into SDM that'd be
great. Thanks for any help.
jcle
be configured in the same subnet. in your configuration I fail to see
why you need the 2621 I would take it out and plug the wap diectly
into the hub. if you need to use the router you need to configure
different subnets on both fe interfaces set the def gw of your pcs to
thw port faceing them and set a def route on the 2621 to go to the
asdl router
Gabriele Beltrame
news:WoGdnfIhyud-IBzV...@bt.com...
Hi,
You can actually create a bridge between the two ethernet ports of the
2651XM, but as already expressed by "jcle" in a previous reply there is no
point in using the 2651XM at all... just connect the PCs to the "hub"
(preferably a switch).
Regards,
Gabriele
tg
"jcle" <jmsp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:05b170c2-0487-4b76...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> the 2621 is a a router meaning the ports are routed ports and cannot
> be configured in the same subnet. in your configuration I fail to see
> why you need the 2621 I would take it out and plug the wap diectly
> into the hub. if you need to use the router you need to configure
> different subnets on both fe interfaces set the def gw of your pcs to
> thw port faceing them and set a def route on the 2621 to go to the
> asdl router
thanks for your response jcl.
I cannot plug the wap into the hub, to explain why I'll need to go backwards. The cisco
wap will only connect to a non-cisco wireless router using the 'universal' wireless bridge
setting (u-wb). U-wb only supports a single device, it will not support multiple devices
on the hub. The normal wireless bridge setting will support multiple devices but n-wb will
only connect to another cisco wireless device, and my adls wireless router is a no-cisco
device. Which means I must use u-wb, and the single device on u-wb has top be the 2651XM.
All the PC's on the hub can 'hide' behind the 2651xm and route through it. So I need to
configure the 2651 to route all the pc's onto the internet. I hope I've explained it ok.
Thanks for the tip you gave, as a newbie I didn't know the ports had to be on different
subnets but I do now. I'll try the instructions you gave but if you could provide a bit
more detail about what you mean that would be really good. Thanks again.
tg
"Gabriele Beltrame" <bel...@drvsource.net> wrote in message
news:4883374d$0$1082$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...
> Hi,
>
> You can actually create a bridge between the two ethernet ports of the 2651XM, but as
> already expressed by "jcle" in a previous reply there is no point in using the 2651XM at
> all... just connect the PCs to the "hub" (preferably a switch).
thanks for your response Gabriel, in my reply above to jcle I've explained why I have to
use the 2651xm. Do you know specifically how I create a bridge between the two ethernet
ports?
Gabriele Beltrame
Hi,
I thought of Integrated Routing and Bridging (look at here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk815/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094663.shtml)
But if you do not need or want L2 transparency you can simply create two
subnets and route between them
i.e.
client (gw: 192.168.0.254)----> (fa0/0, 192.168.1.254/24) router (fa0/1,
172.30.0.1/24 (default route to 172.30.0.254) ------> (e0, 172.30.0.254) wap
Regards,
Gabriele
tg
> I thought of Integrated Routing and Bridging (look at here:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk815/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094663.shtml)
> But if you do not need or want L2 transparency you can simply create two subnets and
> route between them
> i.e.
> client (gw: 192.168.0.254)----> (fa0/0, 192.168.1.254/24) router (fa0/1,
> 172.30.0.1/24 (default route to 172.30.0.254) ------> (e0, 172.30.0.254) wap
thanks for your further help Gabriel but I'm finding it hard to understand what you mean
exactly from the above figures and where I should enter them into sdm
Gabriele Beltrame
Hi,
I've never worked with SDM (actually I just had a brief look at it) so I
can't tell you if using the grphical interface you have access to every
function and flexibility provided by the CLI.
What I ment with the "ugly diagram" is very simple.... you now have a
network where every host is in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, and I suggested
you to create two subnet out of it (or just use another prefix) in order to
have for example 192.168.1.0/24 for the PCs and one interface of the 2651XM
and another sunbet for the link between the 2651XM and the wap (i.e.
192.168.2.0/30); this way you configure all the PCs to have as a default
gateway the 2651XM which in turn will route by default to the wap.
Regards,
Gabriele
tg
> every host is in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, and I suggested you to create two subnet out
> of it (or just use another prefix) in order to have for example 192.168.1.0/24 for the
> PCs and one interface of the 2651XM and another sunbet for the link between the 2651XM
> and the wap (i.e. 192.168.2.0/30); this way you configure all the PCs to have as a
> default gateway the 2651XM which in turn will route by default to the wap.
Hi and thanks for your further help. following your guidelines I had partial success
followed by catastrophe. Last night I managed to get the PC (on 172.16.0.x) going through
the 2651 and seeing the wap and the default gateway on 192.168.1.xxx. I couldn't surf the
internet but It was a relief to have partial success at 1am in the morning. I saved the
config from SDM both on the PC and to the routers startup-config but this morning I've got
nothing and the CLI from the 2651XM says 'loadprog: bad file magic number: 0x0, boot:
cannot load "flash:" Oh dear, it seems something got corrupted so I will have to start
right from the beginning, or work out if it's possible to somehow load back the config I
saved. I think I have all the 2651XM software on CD so wish me luck and thanks again for
your help.
Gabriele Beltrame
Hi,
I'm afraid to hear this; probably the flash memory has been erased or the
boot image has become corrupted. (the config file should be intact in the
NVRAM)
Regards,
Gabriele
tg
<snip>
> I'm afraid to hear this; probably the flash memory has been erased or the boot image has
> become corrupted. (the config file should be intact in the NVRAM)
there was no config file intact anywhere after I'd done erase nvram: and erase flash:
(ha ha).
I tftp'd a new IOS image up to the router 6 times before I learnt that the image had to be
saved to flash, so for hours I was uploading and then rebooting only to find I was stuck
in rommon mode while searching google and reading loads of cisco documents.
I'm pleased to say I've now succeeded in doing what I was originally trying to do, which
was get a small lan of pc's on the internet using a wireless bridge to an adsl router.
What a relief and thankyou for your help along the way Gabriel.
Gabriele Beltrame
Hi,
I'm glad to hear that eventually everything is OK.
Regards,
Gabriele