Cisco IP Routing Command & RIP

telnetting to 192.168.170.12 from 10.16.1.125
configus.txt

Okay...

ip routing is disabled.  Don't know why.  There are two (physical) interfaces on the router (f0/0 & f0/1), but with routing disabled, there's no traffic moving between them.

And you're connecting from a non-connected network which means that your traffic must be going through another router.  So when you enable ip routing, the router tries to respond. But it doesn't have a route to your network so the traffic is dropped.

It's a catch-22. You can't enable RIP without ip routing and you can't enable ip routing without losing your connection.

The only way around is to perform the changes with telnet from a directly connected network (192.168.170.0) or from a console connection.

Hi Don,

Thanks. As long as I know there isn't much that can be done about it until after I have completed the configuration by telnet.

Cheers

I'd love to know why there's a router with multiple interfaces which doesn't have routing or bridging enabled.  Basically it's a doorstop. :-)

no ip route-cache command on your router interfaces and no ip cef in global conf mode means that packets entering interface will be process switched by the CPU instead of ASIC. This alone can kill connectivity to your router since CPU utilization will jump right away when router starts to forward traffic.
Check your show processes cpu on router if utilization is low router don't work anything useful, except your connection.
Interesting is also that router should be in standby group 2, and ip routing is disabled. :)

Predrag,

That is very interesting to know....

Having fast switching or CEF on or off is totally irrelevant if ip routing is disabled.

I know it is irrelevant since it is relevant for L3, and ip routing is disabled.
It will become relevant at moment ip routing is enabled.
I would turn those on before enabling ip routing.

I suspect there's more to this mystery than just ip routing being disabled. :-D

I found almost exact copy of device, at least major parts of config. Looks like that was done on purpose. It is a mystery to me, if author find out why router is set like that I will appreciate feedback.
Similar config posted
And another one
Since I found more that one on those configs, and if you don't have documentation why router is set that way... If it is not broken - DON'T FIX IT.

PS
Sometimes I don't express myself well, English is not my native language.
So, I often correct myself later when I read my posts. Sorry for that. This posting comments is also practice for me to improve my written English and to better express myself.
:)

Agreed.  

There's a lot of things wrong with this config.

HSRP with a that has a private address on a network that appears to have a public address.
An inside NAT interface with no outside interface (and missing the supporting NAT commands).
Loopback interfaces that don't seem to have any purpose.
A fastethernet interface with the speed set to auto but the duplex set to half.

Some are just curious but others would be problem.

I'm going to guess that this isn't a production router. It's probably one that had been in use and then was being re-purposed for another task but then the project stopped.

It's fun to speculate but it will be interesting to find out what the story is.

Hi Guys,

The router isn't in production as yet.

The configs are taken from the original production router, which was is no longer working - we're now running on the backup router.

Its interesting the issues you have pointed out the config, especially as it worked perfectly well before the router crapped out.

Regards

This discussion with technical support can shine a little light on config
AXP on the service modules

I can assure you that there was no way that router was moving any traffic with the config that you posted.

Cheers