The *'s are probably because of the rate limiting of ICMP packets to the box.
Do the trace and enable "debug ip packet <ACL>" and see if you see the IP packet come back in. Try turning off the unreachable rate-limit and see if that does it: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:06:13PM -0500, Drew Weaver wrote: > I have a 3560-48TS which is connected via gig-e to 3 switches(routers). > On Wecape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 1.1.1.1 1 1.1.1.1 20 msec 20 msec * 102_#tr 1.1.1.1 100_(config)#no ip icmp rate-limit unreachable ? DF code 4, fragmentation needed and DF set <cr> 100_(config)#no ip icmp rate-limit unreachable 100_(config)# Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 1.1.1.1 1 1.1.1.1 20 msec 20 msec 28 msec 102_# Rodney , Jan 28, 2009 at 04:06:13PM -0500, Drew Weaver wrote: > On the 3560: > > G0/1, g0/2, and g0/3 are part of VLAN 2 > > interface Vlan2 > ip address x.x.x.4 255.255.255.248 > end > > Ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan2 x.x.x.1 track 1 > Ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan2 x.x.x.2 track 2 > Ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Vlan2 x.x.x.3 track 3 > > Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0, supernet > Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0, candidate default path > Routing Descriptor Blocks: > x.x.x.3, via Vlan2 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > * x.x.x.2, via Vlan2 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > x.x.x.1, via Vlan2 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > > On VLAN 3 (x.x.x.129) I have two servers, one is a Windows 2003 server, and > one is a Redhat 5 server (the 3560 is the gateway for these two servers). > > I know this is kind of nit-picky, but when I run a traceroute from the Linux > server it looks like total * city: > > [~]# traceroute x.x.x.1 > traceroute to x.x.x.1 (x.x.x.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 x.x.x.129 (x.x.x.129) 2.476 ms 2.662 ms 2.882 ms > 2 x.x.x.1 (x.x.x.1) 0.744 ms * * > > If I trace route past the routers to the internet there are many more dozens > of *** along the way. > > The windows 2003 server never shows any * * * during trace routes so I am > assuming this has something to do with the way linux is doing the trace route? > > Is there a better way to do load sharing between l3 devices? > > Thanks, > -Drew > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
