Re: Routing different Subnets thru PM2E
John G. Thompson (jgt10@livingston.com)
Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, John W. Temples wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 patrick@value.net wrote:
>
> > > Yes, the PM had the proper netmask table entry, and my gateway Cisco
> > > had a static route for the /24 pointing at the PM. All the /27s out of
> > > that /24 were connected to that same PM, so I didn't bother updating
> > > the netmask table on other PMs. In the above case, .65 was reachable,
> > > and the Cisco directed packets for .66 towards the PM as expected, but
> > > the PM threw them right back at the Cisco.
> >
> > You should have static routes in the Cisco for the /27's pointing to the
> > PM, not trying to do it as a /24.
>
> I tried various combinations of that (including no routes on the Cisco
> at all), but .66 was still not pingable from the PM itself. And traces
> from the PM showed him sending everything to the Cisco, even though the
> PM's route table had "x.y.z.64 x.y.z.65 HS 1 ptp26" in it.
Please not that the flags are HS, not NS (network static).
Here's the steps you need to do to probably fix the routing problem.
1) make sure you have netmask table enteries in all PM's. They must be
of the form...
Command> add netm x.y.z.0 255.255.255.224
Command> sho tab netm
2) If you have HS or NS route table enteries, delete them and re-add them
into the route table. The routes use the netmasks in effect at the time
the routes were added. Route enteries are not updated when the netmask
table changes.
JGT
--
John G. Thompson Livingston Enterprises Inc. Phone: (800) 458-9966
JOAT(MON) 6920-220 Koll Centre Pkwy. Fax: (510) 426-8951
support@livingston.com Pleasanton, CA 94566 http://www.livingston.com