On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 16:43 -0800, Paul Gerstenberger wrote: 
> {provider} <---[  static  xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx  ]---> {riverstone ASBR} 
> <---[   OSPF 

> Backbone]---> {mikrotik} <--- x.x.x.x/24 public addresses

Ok.  What we need to know:

With the public/24 on the MT "inside" interface:
FROM a machine with another ip in that range (of course attached to the
"inside" MT interface, ping the MT's public/24.  Ping the MT's
IP, and ping the Riverstone  ONE of those is likely to fail
(assuming you have a real routing problem).  Which one will give us a
clue as to what the problem actually is.  What would be helpful is an
output of the routing table on both the MT and Riverstone.  

> I can attach those public addresses directly to the riverstone and they 
> work fine. However if I attach them to the mikrotik they get advertised 
> over OSPF and have local connectivity, but they stop at the border router 
> on a traceroute. However, if you ping a device using one of those addresses 
> from an external network, you get a response. So I'm missing something to 
> make the route bi-directional, if that's the right term.

Is either the MT or the riverstone running some sort of proxy arp on any
interface?  It is possible that is giving you a false impression that
the device is responding from outside?

* Butch Evans                   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/    * Network Engineering              *
* http://store.wispgear.net/    * Wired or Wireless Networks       *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to