Cisco – Resolving Overlap Error in Cisco Packet Tracer
ciscoipipv4packet-tracersubnet
Last time i had many mistakes this time the problem is on in the cardif but i dont get it i do the math and the resuls are right.
Best Answer
If you compare the two tables, the subnet masks don't match for Cardiff F0/0. The subnet mask on the second table is too small (host subnet too large), and it overlaps the next subnet.
PC5 has an invalid host IP address. The last valid host address must be an even number. The IP address assigned to PC5 is the broadcast address for the subnet.
Let me give you the benefit of my experience. You probably should have used a single table. In my experience, duplicate information will always get out of sync. That appears to have been the problem here. The subnet mask in the first table appears to be correct, but it does not match the subnet mask in the second table. Had you just made another column in the first table for the interface IP address, you probably would not have made the overlap mistake.
You can't just make up a subnet address and mask like 193.10.156.72 255.255.255.240, you actually should mask the address to see if you got the subnet. In this case, you didn't.
You should assign an IP addresses to your serial interfaces.
200.0.0.1 and 200.0.0.9
Currently your routers have crypto-maps, which set up to look on each other by IP addresses, but this addresses actually not assigned to any router interfaces. On router 1 (HQ) enter in configuration mode:
interface S0/0/0
ip address 200.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
And same on other router (branch):
interface S0/0/1
ip address 200.0.0.9 255.255.255.0
Best Answer
If you compare the two tables, the subnet masks don't match for Cardiff F0/0. The subnet mask on the second table is too small (host subnet too large), and it overlaps the next subnet.
PC5 has an invalid host IP address. The last valid host address must be an even number. The IP address assigned to PC5 is the broadcast address for the subnet.
Let me give you the benefit of my experience. You probably should have used a single table. In my experience, duplicate information will always get out of sync. That appears to have been the problem here. The subnet mask in the first table appears to be correct, but it does not match the subnet mask in the second table. Had you just made another column in the first table for the interface IP address, you probably would not have made the overlap mistake.