Tags:


Forum Replies

  1. Ok first question. In you post you have the following below. YOu will notice its pointing to :2:2 however there is no :2:2 network on any of the routers is this a typo did you mean to say :23:23::??? also its a 64 instead of a 128 which is what the loopback is. However maybe all addresses are held within the 128?? So your just pointing to a non-existent address knowing that since the one is a prefix of 128 that can hold all addresses so its being sent that way. very cryptic though and I wanted to confirm.

    if this is just a typo then you might want to

    ... Continue reading in our forum

  2. Hello Brian

    It seems that @ReneMolenaar is using the 2001:2:2::/64 prefix for the L0 interface on R2 in the first diagram, but when he adds R3 to the topology, he changes it to 2001:23:23::/64. I’ll let him know to change it so that it is consistent all the way through the lesson, either 2:2 or 23:23, including the routing tables.

    ... Continue reading in our forum

  3. Hello @lagapides

    Could you please explain why this happens? I just tried to lab it out (using F0/0) and it didn’t work as well

    “Just like with IPv4, it is possible to use an interface as the next hop. This will only work with point-to-point interfaces, If you try this with a FastEthernet interface, you’ll see that the router will accept the command but the ping won’t work. You can’t use this for multi-access interfaces.”

  4. Hello Sales

    It is generally not a good idea to configure default route using only physical interface as next-hop if this physical interface is NOT point-to-point. For example its NOT good to use physical interface as nex-hop if it is an Ethernet interface, because ethernet is broadcast multi access by its nature.

    I suggest you to do small l

    ... Continue reading in our forum

27 more replies! Ask a question or join the discussion by visiting our Community Forum