Interesting proposition........
How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ?
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why
> you
> use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything}
> routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.� All
> your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if I'm misunderstanding
> the problem, but my point still stands.
> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started
>> to
>> renumber some PPPoE pools.
>> Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27
>> pool).
>> Customer can�t surf and I can�t ping them from my office:
>> �
>> [office] � [Bernie Router] � [Braggcity Router] � [Ross Router] �
>> [Hayti
>> Router] � [customer]
>> �
>> A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any
>> type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
>> unreachable etc � just blackholes after my office router.
>> A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router
>> with no type of response.
>> �
>> Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing
>> to
>> the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA�s.
>> --
>> Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.
>> �
>> --
>> Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the
>> service
>> starts working again.
>> �
>> --
>> �
>> Now � even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing
>> table
>> � traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I
>> should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.
>> �
>> This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no
>> route to it:
>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206
>> �
>> Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:
>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.
>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.
>> �
>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:
>> ��� Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
>> �
>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206
>> �
>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]
>> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>> �
>> � 1���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 7 ms� z.z.z.z
>> � 2���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 6 ms� y.bpsnetworks.com
>> [y.y.y.1]
>> � 3� y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] �reports: Destination host
>> unreachable.
>> �
>> Trace complete.
>> �
>> This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there
>> is no
>> route to it.
>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208
>> �
>> Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:
>> Request timed out.
>> Request timed out.
>> �
>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:
>> ��� Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),
>> �
>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208
>> �
>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]
>> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>> �
>> � 1���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 6 ms� z.z.z.z
>> � 2���� *������� *������� *����
>> Request timed out.
>> � 3���� *������� *���� ^C
>> �
>> --
>> �
>> I�ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic � I even
>> put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination
>> of
>> x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out
>> of the routing flow and into the firewall..
>> �
>> Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?
>> !DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!
