Howard Leadmon wrote:
Hello Diogo,
Thanks for the reply.. Actually I had a dynamic routing protocol running on
the routers, and even pulled that and tried using static routes. Actually
as I was just trying to ping interface to interface, no routing at all
should have been needed, as Router-B would have seen both of the /30's as a
connected path.
Not sure if you saw my earlier response to Gert, but I did afterwards take
and tear down the MLPPP bundle, and then just put the /30 from the bundle on
a single T1 interface. When I did that, everything worked, traffic moved
perfectly. So it's without a doubt something very specific to having the
Multilink interface up, as only then does the pathway fail. The only thing
I can see different when I put it over multilink is that I see a /30 and a
/32 in the routing table from it. So if I am on router B and do a show ip
route, I see 192.168.98.28/30 and also a 192.168.98.30/32 both pointing to
the Multilink1 interface. Not quite sure why I get that /32 in the table,
but guessing it's just a quirk of how the MLPPP connection establishes.
Try adding 'no peer neighbor-route' to the multilink config?
~Seth
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
