Bridging or Routing?

[Guttersnipe]

I have an office building and a corporate building connected to each other using frame-relay. The office building has a Cisco 1600 router and the corporate building has a Cisco 3600 router. The 1600 is connected to a sub-interface on the 3600.
In the office building there is a separate network that I want to connect to the main network. I have both networks physically connected to the 1600. They are both using TCP/IP.
What is the best solution to get traffic from both networks to the main network?
Do I need to use bridging or will just routing work? What would I need to configure in the router(s)?
Right now I have a secondary IP address in the 1600 set up like this:
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 212.132.59.1 255.255.255.0 secondary
ip address 10.20.0.1 255.255.255.0


Thanks.

 

[wybnormal]

Bridging defeats the whole point of a router which is to *route* traffic and break up broadcast domains. It is possible to bridge while routing and it's possible to encapsulate the bridge traffic. SNA over DLSW is a good example of this.

We need more info in order to provide an accurate answer. We can give some guidelines..

The 1600 would work well from you described with a default route..

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 <next hop IP> this tells the router to send all of it's traffic that is not directly connected to the next supernet which is your primary site. Easy.. simple route

For the primary site to the remote..

ip route <remote IP network> <mask> <next hop or interface>

This will move all IP *except* the broadcast or non-ip like IPX. If you need to browse the remote network or DHCP etc, then you need an IP Helper address on the serial links. This will pass the required broadcast traffic for most of MS products to work. Or you can go through the hassle of setting the LMHOST files.. a huge pain.

MikeS

&quot;Diplomacy; the art of saying 'nice doggie' till you can find a rock&quot; Wynn Catlin