[MLB-WIRELESS] Strange routingissues on 10.10.129.64/28 (GHO-North-5.8/HVC??)
peter at nmc.net.au
Mon Mar 12 03:35:28 EST 2012
I've change the way the routing works on this interface.
Is it better now ?
From: melbwireless-bounces at lists.wireless.org.au
[mailto:melbwireless-bounces at lists.wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:52 AM
To: David Nuttall; melbwireless at lists.wireless.org.au
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Strange routingissues on 10.10.129.64/28
Great!! I'm not going mad!
Looks like I need to talk to Peter (JIA) ... think we need to tempoarily
shut down this interface on HVC until they plug the cord back in on JIA!
On 6/03/2012 12:34 AM, David Nuttall wrote:
Things are going OK till you get to JLP at Heidelberg. (10.10.81.33 is
the incoming interface from Box Hill)
After that is where it goes bad.
If it goes direct to GHO (10.10.80.5) all is good.
If it goes via HVC (10.10.2.225) it gets lost.
1) Looking at OSPF at JLP right now, it wants to send traffic to
10.10.129.64/28 via HVC with a cost of 20! There is a cost of 10 from
JLP to HVC. That suggests 10.10.129.64/28 is directly connected to HVC
with a cost of 10 on it's interface.
2) I pinged all of the addresses in 10.10.129.64/28 from JLP and a
response came back from 10.10.129.70 on the HVC interface. Time was 1
3) So it looks like you are right, 10.10.129.64/28 is on both HVC and
4) A couple of guesses.... Maybe an attempt to directly link HVC with
GHO after JIA died? Maybe JIA was bridging HVC and GHO? Someone will
Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Melbwireless