is this possible?

[penduko]

A = Router UK
B = Router US NY
C = Router US CA


A <--- T1----> B|(wic0)
|
wic1)|<---------- Local Loop 512Kp ----> C


Eth0 A = 192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0
Eth0 B = 192.168.2.1/255.255.255.0
Eth0 C = 192.168.3.1/255.255.255.0

S0 A = 10.10.83.1/255.255.255.0
S0 B = 10.10.83.2/255.255.255.0
S1 B = 10.10.83.3/255.255.255.0
S0 C = 10.10.83.4/255.255.255.0

questions:

1. What will be the RIP settings so that all the eth0s and wics can communicate to each other.

Thanks,

Penduko

 

[lambent]

Your WAN ip addresses are all within the same subnet...
I think you should assign a 30-bit subnet to each p2p WAN link.

e.g.

S0 A = 10.10.83.1/255.255.255.252
S0 B = 10.10.83.2/255.255.255.252
S1 B = 10.10.83.5/255.255.255.252
S0 C = 10.10.83.6/255.255.255.252

Then for Router A:

!
router rip
version 2
no auto-summary
neighbor 10.10.83.2
network 192.168.0.0
network 10.0.0.0
!

Then for Router B:

!
router rip
version 2
no auto-summary
neighbor 10.10.83.1
neighbor 10.10.83.6
network 192.168.0.0
network 10.0.0.0
!

Then for Router C:

!
router rip
version 2
no auto-summary
neighbor 10.10.83.5
network 192.168.0.0
network 10.0.0.0
!

 

[watchguardmonkey]

Why run RIP? static routes would be a lot easier and less overhead on the routers.

 

[penduko]

How do I configure the router for static route using the above scenario.... thanks...

 

[lgarner]

On A (using the /30 masks above):
ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.83.2
ip route 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.83.6

And so on for each router.

Personally, I like eigrp as long as they're all Cisco routers. Much faster convergence and less traffic, though the traffic on a small WAN shouldn't be an issue.

On each router:

router eigrp 1
network 192.168.0.0
network 10.0.0.0