Are these two reflectors edge facing ?
On 8/25/2016 11:54 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:
Route reflectors.
On 08/25/2016 07:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
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:2,57bfa9b9213521526810955!
--