Dynamic routing protocols over wireless.

Hello all,
Are there any issues with running dynamic routing protocols through two access points (1240AG) bridging two LANs that are presumably currently setup with a dynamic routing protocol?
Thanks,
Patrick

There shouldn't be.
They are acting as bridges ... so no need for a routing protocol in the common broadcast domain.
Unless you have some flavor of broadcast / multicast control in-place, it should pass the traffic without issue.
Good Luck
Scott

Similar Messages

  • Routing protocols over IPSEC

    why can't you run a routing protocol in IPSEC tunnel mode? why do you need GRE to run a routing protocol?

    Most of the dynamic routing protocols use multicast addressing or broadcast addressing for the destination address. IPSec processes unicast IP traffic. This is the reason that we have traditionally used GRE which can easily pass multicast and broadcast traffic within the tunnel as the way to run routing protocols over IPSec tunnels. With GRE the multicast routing protocol traffic is encapsulated in a GRE packet which has a unicast source and destination address.
    HTH
    Rick

  • Dynamic Routing Protocols - what do I really need to know?

    Ok, ridiculously broad question I know but....what I'm trying to figure out is, let's say I'm in a large coproration and I have multiple field sites in different areas of the country so the network setup may be somewhat complex but when it comes to setting up the dynamic routing...is it as simple as let's say, configuring a router to use BGP for whatever portion you designate then just letting it be? is it somewhat challenging to initally configure dynamic routing protocols (i.e. how often have you found yourselves worrying about admin distance, areas (I don't even know what an "area" is yet either so if anyone could explain that I would appreciate it), etc..
    So in short, are dynamic routing protocols "Set it and forget it" or do they require a ton of planning to setup? I'm familliar with the differences between them (i.e. OSPF, RIP, EIGRP,etc..) and the differences in link state and distance vector but I just wanted to ask about the setup of the protocols themselves.
    Thanks!!

    You can exchange routes between protocols with redistribution.
    The problem with the question is, as you say, it is too broad to really answer properly.
    All routing protocols have different considerations so what you might do for EIGRP you may not do with OSPF and BGP is different altogether.
    As a general answer if you are enabling it across a WAN all take a certain amout of planning and design and they all rely heavily on what you have done with your IP addressing in terms of summarisation etc.
    The actual configurations to get a basic setup running are relatively simple, certainly for IGPs, but as your network grows you may find the configurations becoming more complex
    BGP is a very different in that there are many different commands you can use to influence the path traffic takes but even here to setup a very basic BGP peering only requires a few commands.
    But no routing protocol in a large environment should just be configured with no thought as to how it is going to work, traffic paths, number of routes etc.
    You can do it but you may well find as your network grows you will end up having to revisit the whole thing because it is not working as you intended.
    Like I say it's too large a question to really answer because each routing protocol is different and may or may not meet the requirements of the network.
    If there are more specific questions then please feel free to ask.
    Jon

  • Dynamic Routing Protocol Support in Cisco ASA Multiple Context Mode

                       Dear Experts,
    Wold like to know whether dynamic Routing Protocol Support in Cisco ASA Firewall Multiple Context Mode. If yes then please provide OS version and Hardware Model of Cisco ASA Firewall. Appreciate the quick response.  Thanks.

    Hi,
    Check out this document for the information
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/roadmap/asa_new_features.html#wp93116
    Its lists the following for software level 9.0(1)
    Multiple   Context Mode Features
    Dynamic routing in Security   Contexts
    EIGRP and OSPFv2 dynamic   routing protocols are now supported in multiple context mode. OSPFv3, RIP, and multicast routing   are not supported.
    Seems to me you would need some 9.x version to support the above mentioned Dynamic Routing Protocols.
    I don't think its related to the hardware model of the ASA other than that it requires a model that supports Multiple Context Mode. To my understanding the only model that doesnt support that is ASA5505 of the whole ASA5500 and ASA5500-X series.
    Hope this helps
    - Jouni

  • If support dynamic routing protocol?

    Hi, guys
    I know RRAS can support only RIP protocol. However, I cant find any way to configure dynamic routing protocol on TMG, some people say TMG cant support that even rip. That’s right? Is it possible or is there any plug-in can help TMG to do that?
    Nice Day

    Hi,
    Thank you for your post here.
    As far as I know, it is impossible to do that. By default, TMG does not support it.
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee796231.aspx#t4t4e4t
    Best Regards
    Quan Gu

  • Routing protocol over mpls

    Hi  all, 
    i have to implement a network customer over a vpls provider  ( 60 site L2  any to any).
    which protocol for this design ? eigrp, ospf or bgp with advantage or inconvenient?
    thanks,

    If this is to be a layer 2 network for 60 sites with any to any connectivity then you can choose which ever routing protocol you wish since the provider will not be participating in the routing protocol. BGP would be at the bottom of my list for this for several reasons, one of which is that BGP does not do dynamic neighbor discovery and I would not want to manually configure 59 neighbors on each of 60 routers.
    Either OSPF or EIGRP could be good choices. If we knew more about this network it might be possible to favor one or the other. For OSPF it seems likely that you would have a single area and some people might be concerned about 60 peers in a single area. But I think it could be appealing that most routers would go through full adjacency with only two peers where with EIGRP each router would negotiate neighbor relationship with 59 neighbors. Another consideration might be what the topology of the sites is like. If each site has several subnets and if the subnets fall into summarizable ranges then EIGRP might be preferred since it enables summarization from each of the routers which reduces the complexity of the routing table on each neighbor.
    HTH
    Rick

  • Good CCIE question: Can multiple site-2-site VPNs support dynamic routing protocols?

    Hi All,
    Was not sure if this should be posted in LAN routing, WAN routing or VPN forums: I have posted here as the VPN tunnels are the limiting factors...
    I am trying to understand if it is possible to have dynamic routing between LANs when using site to site VPNs on three or more ASA55x5-x (9.0).
    To best explain the question I have put together an example scenario:
    Lets say we have three sites, which are all connected via a separate site-2-site IKEv2 VPNs, in a full mesh topology (6 x SAs).
    Across the whole system there would be a 192.168.0.0/16 subnet which is divided up by VLSM across all sites.
    The inside / outside interfaces of the ASA would be static IPs from a /30 subnet.
    Routing on the outside interface is not of concern in this scenario.
    The inside interface of the ASA connects directly to a router, which further uses VLSM to assign additional subnets.
    VLSM is not cleanly summarised per site. (I know this flys against VLSM best practice, but makes the scenario clearer...)
    New subnets are added and removed at each site on a frequent basis.
    EIGRP will be running on each core router, and any stub routers at each site.
    So this results in the following example topology, of which I have exaggerated the VLSM position:
    (http://www.diagram.ly/?share=#OtprIYuOeKRb3HBV6Qy8CL8ZUE6Bkc2FPg2gKHnzVliaJBhuIG)
    Now, using static route redistribution from the ASAs into EIGRP and making the ASAs to be an EIGRP neighbour, would be one way. This would mean an isolated EIGRP AS per site, but each site would only learn about a new remote subnet if the crypto map match ACL was altered. But the bit that I am confused over, is the potential to have new subnets added or removed which would require EIGRP routing processes on the relevant site X router to be altered as well as crypto map ACLs being altered at all sites. This doesn't seem a sensible approach...
    The second method could be to have the 192.168.0.0/16 network defined in the crypto map on all tunnels and allow the ASAs routing table to chose which tunnel to send the traffic over. This would require multiple neighbours for the ASA, but for example in OSPF, it can only support one neighbour over a S2S VPN when manually defined (point-to-point). The only way round this I can see is to share our internal routing tables with the IP cloud, but this then discloses information that would be otherwise protected by the IPSEC tunnel...
    Is there a better method to propagate the routing information dynamically around the example scenario above?
    Is there a way to have dynamic crypto maps based on router information?
    P.S. Diagram above produced via http://www.diagram.ly/

    Hi Guys,
    Thanks for your responses!  I am learning here, hence the post.
    David: I had looked in to the potential for GRE tunnels, but the side-effects could out weight the benifits.  The link provided shows how to pass IKEv1 and ISAKMP traffic through the ASA.  In my example (maybe not too clear?) the IPSEC traffic would be terminated on the ASA and not the core router behind.
    Marcin: Was looking at OSPF, but is that not limited to one neighbour, due to the "ospf network point-to-point non-broadcast" command in the example (needed to force the unicast over the IPSEC tunnel)? Have had a look in the ASA CLI 9.0 config guide and it is still limited to one neighbour per interface when in point-to-point:
    ospf network point-to-point non-broadcastSpecifies the interface as a point-to-point, non-broadcast network.When you designate an interface as point-to-point and non-broadcast, you must manually define the OSPF neighbor; dynamic neighbor discovery is not possible. See the "Defining Static OSPFv2 Neighbors" section for more information. Additionally, you can only define one OSPF neighbor on that interface.
    Otherwise I would agree it would be happy days...
    Any other ideas (maybe around iBGPs like OSPF) which do not envolve GRE tunnels or terminating the IPSEC on the core router please?
    Kindest Regards,
    James.

  • CE dial-in to PE. What routing protocol I should use ?

    Hi,
    Situation - CE connected to PE via some ethernet interface (primary) and ISDN dial-up as backup, so I need to use some dynamic routing protocol to distribute customers networks to other sites. Now I'm looking towards extended (triggered) RIP, but maybe there are better choices?
    As I know, only triggereg RIP and OSPF supports 'on-demand' circuits, but OSPF isn't recommended as CE-PE protocol because it has no VRF awareness and we would have to run separate OSPF process for every VRF what isn't nice. This makes RIP only choice? Or there are another possibilities, maybe BGP ?

    Hi,
    over all there is static, RIPv2, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS and BGP for PE-CE.
    Well floating static alone seems no possibility in your case.
    RIP and EIGRP have some issues when running on redundant links into the VPN (possibility of routing loops), which would be the case with backup active and primary coming back. Depending on the exact topology there might or might not be a workaround.
    OSPF has to be run as separate processes. Might be tough on PE resources, depending on your exact setup details. Other than that it does the job.
    eBGP with ebgp-multihop and static routes is an option. So eBGP doesn´t go down, just is directed over backup link in case primary is down.
    Pick your poison! :-)
    regards
    Martin

  • DMVPN Routing Protocols

    Hi all, I have a couple of questions about routing protocols over  DMVPN.
    I'm a bit rusty so I'd appreciate if there's mistakes in my understanding if you could correct me.
    I understand the EIGRP doesn't ordinarily use the next hop field, receiving routers insert the source of the EIGRP update as the next hop. It uses split horizoning and feasibility tests to detect loops. Over DMVPN you can use the no ip next hop self eigrp command to force eigrp to insert the originating router as the next hop.
    OSPF you can specify different OSPF network types - I cannot remember exactly but it may be broadcast networks or multi-access that don't change the next hop?
    RIPv2 - I do not understand how RIPv2 works with DMVPN (although I know it does) as to my knowledge Ripv2 does indeed change the next hop.
    Can anyone explain how Ripv2 integrates with DMVPN and confirm or correct my understanding of EIGRP/OSPF?
    Thanks very much

    You're correct on EIGRP. OSPF preserves the next hop of the originating router in all modes except point-to-multipoint. RIPv2 always preserves the original next-hop and this can't be turned off... so it works with DMVPN with no modification except for the split-horizon considerations.
    For scaling DMVPN, your worst choice is OSPF because of the large link-state database that forms with so many routers on a single subnet. EIGRP and RIPv2 are very good for DMVPN because the updates are small and simple. These days, I'm moving to BGP for just about all of my DMVPN work... mostly because it scales better than any IGP.

  • PE-CE Dynamic routing

    I am running a PE-CE vpn routing. Now my client wants to access a particulat ip which is on internet and may be the demand can be increased and he doesnot want to add the addtional static routes for this. Can we have any routing solution which can solve the purpose. Please post your comments.
    regards
    shivlu

    Hi Shivlu,
    What i understand is, This is an VPN customer and you running dynamic routing protocol (RIPv2/OSPF/EIGRP/BGP) as PE-CE, the customer want to access specific destination address on the internet (google.com) for example, so now we talking about how to make this route reachable through the customer VPN, i think Route Leaking in MPLS/VPN will solve your issue, but in this case you should consider the customer address space issue, i mean how the customer private routes will talk to internet destination, there is a NAT device should be in the path to NAT the customer private address.
    This is a very simple URL by Cisco explaning MPLS Route Leaking:
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk436/tk832/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080231a3e.shtml
    In this case you will add 2 static routes on your PE and redistribute it by the customer PE-CE routing protocol.
    Correct me if i didn't get your point
    Best Regards,
    Mounir Mohamed

  • Which routing protocols are supported on ASA 5585

    Hi,
    I am curious to know which routing protocol is well supported on Cisco ASA 5585. do someone on the forum has implemented routing on ASA?
    I have ASA 5585 on context mode, as of now 4 contexts have been created. upstream device is Nexus.
    I have ASA with Software Version 8.4(4)1 and Device Manager Version 6.4(9).
    if someone can point me to good implemented example of routing protocol to their environment (like OSPF, BGP) that would be great.
    Thanks

    You're welcome.
    Multiple contexts adds another twist - in ASA 8.4 dynamic routing protocols are not supported at all for multiple contexts. Reference.
    ASA 9.0 added support for dynamic routing protocols in multiple context modes, including OSPF v2 (but not v3 for IPv6). Reference.
    FYI ASA 9.1(2) is current as of this writing and is the recommended release in the 9.x train. (Mentioned near the end of the latest TAC Security podcast - episode #37 here.)

  • What is the preferred dynamic routing over l2l/ipsec?

    what is the preferred dynamic routing over l2l/ipsec?
    Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

    Disclaimer
    The  Author of this posting offers the information contained within this  posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that  there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.  Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not  be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In  no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,  without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    Pretty much what you might use if not IPSec.
    Do you have some reason why IPSec should have a preferred routing protocol or are you just wondering if there is a preferred routing protocol for IPSec?

  • Wireless ad hoc routing protocols

    I have an application that uses wireless ad hoc routing protocols (node-to-node communication).  Has anyone developed any application that implements wireless ad hoc networking protocols, such as route discovery, route maintenance etc. using LabView?  If so, I'd appreciate if you could provide more insight on your application.
    Thank you in advance.

    I've done something like that in the past, but LV was not the interface to the network. 
    Basically, LV was used to control parameters within an embedded system (running Linux-Embedded) and sending commands over serial and / or Ethernet ports.  The system was comprised of multiple boards, each running an OS with 3 layers of communication, some of which were serial, most over Ethernet.
    However, the firmware took care of discovering and setting up the network.  LV simply quieried the system to find out what it had to deal with (how many boards, what type, etc), then it would quiery the application to find out if the expected networks were esblished and to allow permissions over the network. 
    Are you trying to achieve something similar or are you trying to implement (setup) the network directly using LV?
    JLV

  • When do i have to use a gre over ipsec tunnel? i have heard that when i m using a routing protocol and vpn site to site i need a

    i have configured a network with ospf and a vpn site to site without gre tunnel and it works very well. I want to know, when do i have to use gre tunnel over ipsec

    Hi josedilone19
    GRE is used when you need to pass Broadcast or multicast traffic.  That's the main function of GRE.
    Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) is a protocol that encapsulates packets in order to route other protocols over IP networks
    However there are some other important aspect to consider: 
    In contrast to IP-to-IP tunneling, GRE tunneling can transport multicast and IPv6 traffic between networks
    GRE tunnels encase multiple protocols over a single-protocol backbone.
    GRE tunnels provide workarounds for networks with limited hops.
    GRE tunnels connect discontinuous sub-networks.
    GRE tunnels allow VPNs across wide area networks (WANs).
    -Hope this helps -

  • Applying dynamic routing feature on outdoor wireless connection for load ba

    Gentlemen,
    Does the Cisco outdoor wireless unit support dynamic routing (e.g. RIP or others) to do the load balancing between leased line and wireless connection.
    I am looking to confirm if the outdoor unit has the routing features to apply this scenario.
    Thank you,

    No Response !!!!
    Pls your action.
    Thank you,

Maybe you are looking for