On 09/21/2010 08:48 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Ok... so here's the latest.
I put a static route at our Internet edge - we redistribute static into OSPF
so now this /32 destination is able to be seen in the routing table (other
than the default originated route). This solves the issue if I
: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
On 09/21/2010 08:48 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Ok... so here's the latest.
I put a static route at our Internet edge - we redistribute static into
OSPF
so now this /32 destination is able to be seen in the routing table (other
than
...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Phil Mayers
Sent: September-22-10 3:40 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
On 09/21/2010 08:48 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Ok... so here's the latest.
I put
Hi folks..
We have a customer who is connected over DSL who is having issues getting to
a certain remote site more often than not. Sometime they can reach this
site, but most of the time they cannot.
They connect to a 7206VXR, which then connects to a 6509 which then
connections to 6509,
Hi Paul - perhaps you have a firewall filter preventing the ingress icmp
replies (to the 7206VXR)..?
On 21 September 2010 14:54, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote:
Hi folks..
We have a customer who is connected over DSL who is having issues getting
to
a certain remote site more
Thank you - good thinking but I checked and there's nothing in there to
limit ICMP at all..;)
Paul
From: Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue
and there’s nothing in there to
limit ICMP at all….;)
Paul
*From:* Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:05 AM
*To:* Paul Stewart
*Cc:* cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
*Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
Hi Paul - perhaps
that the traceroute would at least transverse our igp properly .
Thanks,
Paul
From: Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:00 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
If it's
but I checked and there’s nothing in there to
limit ICMP at all….;)
Paul
*From:* Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:05 AM
*To:* Paul Stewart
*Cc:* cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
*Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:04:38AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
I'm confident that if the remote IP was blocking us or something of that
nature that the traceroute would at least transverse our igp properly .
local null route (something left in the config that directs this IP
into a black
: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
If it's not a firewall, its probably routing.. Is the 7206VXR using a
loopback for the source of the icmp request packets, and do you have a route
back to this ip in your igp?
On 21 September 2010 15:17, Paul Stewart p
Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
If my understanding is correct here, then the DSL user is probably blocking
inbound icmp so you would expect the traceroutes you see.. (just constant
timeouts).
Lets take a step back here
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:37:41AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
With that in mind, I'm puzzled . maybe it's simply a matter of sit back and
take a good long look as Gert just suggested ;)
Try show ip cef. Sometimes cef gets confused about things (like oh,
I've heard an ARP reply for this
dis2-rtr-mb#show ip route xx.xxx.2.226
% Network not in table
dis2-rtr-mb#show ip cef xx.xxx.2.226
0.0.0.0/0, version 8684984, epoch 1, cached adjacency xx.xxx.0.226
0 packets, 0 bytes
via xx.xxx.0.226, Vlan4, 0 dependencies
next hop xx.xxx.0.226, Vlan4
valid cached adjacency
Am I
Just a random thought.. have you got any ipsec tunnels going? I just
checked and they don't appear in cef output (cryptomap on ingress).
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
No, just pure routing ;) Thanks though for the thought...
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
Sent: September-21-10 12:35 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
Just
So far, it's got me stumped! Put some port mirroring and capture from
that 6500 perhaps..
My mind is hovering somewhere around ttl / forward path being ok, but
return broken for some reason.. but I don't think it will have any
success.
Its worth checking (as Brian said) 'show ip cef exact-route'
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:38 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
I need a coffee or 2, I am misreading absolutely everything today!!
Ok so that IP is not the customer IP
neither...
We'll keep poking away - appreciate it..
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
Sent: September-21-10 12:59 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Gert Doering; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
So far
What happens when you try BADIP+1 or something close to it?
Also if you happened to have assigned this BADIP to a dsl customer (or
in a routed network via radius attribute behind it), and had the
config on the lns cause the next hop to be the 6500 (policy routing,
vrf etc)..
I noticed the cef
@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
What happens when you try BADIP+1 or something close to it?
Also if you happened to have assigned this BADIP to a dsl customer (or
in a routed network via radius attribute behind it), and had the
config on the lns cause
Just for fun, put in a static route for the /32 and then remove it on the
box that can't reach.
--chip
--
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Strange indeed.
I have seen a similar problem with the default route + CEF bug. But
that was on C10K.
You could try to add a static /32 route to the BADIP on the
xx.xx.120.25 box, just to exclude some default route issue. Also to
create a specific CEF entry.
Have you done some ip packet
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:47:45AM -0400, Paul Stewart wrote:
Hehe. yeah, I hear ya.. At first I thought this is just one of those hey,
dummy look at the routing table..;)
Mmmmh. Any sort of policy routing or traffic engineering involved?
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part
re-occurs... any thoughts?
Thanks,
Paul
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of chip
Sent: September-21-10 3:21 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
I put a static route at our Internet edge - we redistribute static into OSPF
so now this /32 destination is able to be seen in the routing table (other
than the default originated route).
That really does suggest that the routing information is incorrect. I
mentioned previously about routing
: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Weird Traceroute Issue to Specific Destination
Is BGP information passed in to this 6500 (that connects to VXR), or
are you just using a default route?
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
27 matches
Mail list logo
