RE: (PM) subnet routing on pm3's
Chad Scott (chad@txdirect.net)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:16:59 -0600
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 6:03 PM, Mike Denka [SMTP:mdenk@whidbey.net]
wrote:
> OK, you might say, it must be the Cisco whose routing tables are screwed
up.
> But if I look at the routes on the cisco, it shows the ripped route to
the
> Webramp to be via the appropriate PM3. And if you traceroute to the
> Webramp or any of it's internal nodes from the Cisco, the trace goes
> straight to the PM3 then dies (you know, 3 * * *, etc.). Also, tracing
> from devices on other networks shows that packets addressed to the
> 207.208.91.64 network bounce from the PM3 to the Cisco and back to the
> PM3 and back to the Cisco until the trace quits. This seems to be saying
> that the PM3, even though it sees a route to the 207.208.91.64 network
> through the appropriate port when you do a "show route", doesn't know
> how to route the packet when it comes from the router on its network.
Let RIP R.I.P. In my experience, 90% of the problems people have with
routing and RIP are RIP's fault. It's an outdated protocol that's been
overhauled in an attempt to make it work right in modern environments and
it falls short. OSPF is a much better answer.
The routing loop you have seems to indicate that the PM3 doesn't understand
that 207.208.91.64 is directly connected or it has an invalid subnet mask,
etc. Take a look at the routing tables on the Cisco and the PM3 to see if
they agree (other than the destination, of course =) ).
If they match, you've stumped me. I've already had situations like this
with RIP many years back and switched to OSPF as a result. You won't be
disappointed if you do the same.
Chad Scott
Network Operations
Internet Direct, Incorporated
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.