From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 6 14:56:51 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954EA16A41B for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:56:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jp@tns.cz) Received: from bns.tns.cz (bns.tns.cz [213.194.214.115]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D264813C457 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:56:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jp@tns.cz) Received: from bns.tns.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bns.tns.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820CD55E4E9 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:40:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from bonifac.tns.cz (bertik [192.168.144.14]) by bns.tns.cz with ESMTP id 4FAE6T40014IUYQD0MR; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:40:33 +0100 (CET) Received: by bonifac.tns.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C8886F19AF; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:41:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:41:04 +0100 From: Josef Pojsl To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080206144104.GL1122@bonifac.tns.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Subject: ospf cost and route selection (openospfd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:56:51 -0000 Hello, I am trying to use openospfd 4.0 over FreeBSD 6.2 in order to provide redundancy for routing between LAN 1 and LAN 2. The picture is as follows: Locality 1 (LAN 1) Locality 2 (LAN 2) WAN X ------------------------ Router 1 WAN Y Router 2 ------------------------ Router 1 is connected to LAN 1 on one side and to two WANs, X and Y, on the other side. The same holds for Router 2, it is connected to LAN 2, WAN X and WAN Y. There are gre tunnels between the routers over both WAN X and WAN Y. These tunnels get encrypted with IPsec transport. I have configured openospfd over both gre interfaces. The preferred link that I would like to be used for routing of LANs is the gre tunnel between 1 and 2 over WAN X. The cost of that link is the least of both costs. But, openospfd converges with routing between 1 and 2 over WAN Y, not WAN X. I have no clue why. LAN 1 is 192.168.1.0/24, LAN 2 is 192.168.2.0/24. gre30 is the link over WAN X, gre31 over WAN Y. 10.10.0.0/16 is WAN X, 10.20.0.0/16 is WAN Y. Configuration of gre tunnels: Router 1: gre30: flags=b051 mtu 1476 tunnel inet 10.10.1.2 --> 10.10.2.2 inet 10.30.1.2 --> 10.30.2.2 netmask 0xffffff00 gre31: flags=b051 mtu 1476 tunnel inet 10.20.1.2 --> 10.20.2.2 inet 10.31.1.2 --> 10.31.2.2 netmask 0xffffff00 Router 2: gre30: flags=b051 mtu 1476 tunnel inet 10.10.2.2 --> 10.10.1.2 inet 10.30.2.2 --> 10.30.1.2 netmask 0xffffff00 gre31: flags=b051 mtu 1476 tunnel inet 10.20.2.2 --> 10.20.1.2 inet 10.31.2.2 --> 10.31.1.2 netmask 0xffffff00 Configuration of openospfd: Router 1: router-id 0.0.0.1 redistribute connected area 0.0.0.0 { interface gre30 { metric 20 } interface gre31 { metric 50 } } Router 2: router-id 0.0.0.2 redistribute connected area 0.0.0.0 { interface gre30 { metric 20 } interface gre31 { metric 50 } } ospfctl show rib: Router 1: Destination Nexthop Path Type Type Cost Uptime 0.0.0.2 10.31.2.2 Intra-Area Router 20 00:03:51 10.30.1.2/32 10.31.2.2 Intra-Area Network 40 00:03:41 10.31.1.2/32 10.31.2.2 Intra-Area Network 70 00:03:51 10.10.0.0/16 10.31.2.2 Type 1 ext Network 120 00:03:51 10.20.0.0/16 10.31.2.2 Type 1 ext Network 120 00:03:51 192.168.2.0/24 10.31.2.2 Type 1 ext Network 120 00:03:51 Router 2: Destination Nexthop Path Type Type Cost Uptime 0.0.0.1 10.31.1.2 Intra-Area Router 20 00:04:51 10.30.2.2/32 10.31.1.2 Intra-Area Network 40 00:04:44 10.31.2.2/32 10.31.1.2 Intra-Area Network 70 00:04:51 10.10.0.0/16 10.31.1.2 Type 1 ext Network 120 00:04:51 10.20.0.0/16 10.31.1.2 Type 1 ext Network 120 00:04:51 192.168.1.0/24 10.31.1.2 Type 1 ext Network 120 00:04:51 ospfctl show interface detail: Router 1: Interface gre31, line protocol is UP Internet address 10.31.1.2/24, Area 0.0.0.0 Linkstate unknown Router ID 0.0.0.1, network type POINTOPOINT, cost: 50 Transmit delay is 1 sec(s), state P2P, priority 1 Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Backup Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Timer intervals configured, hello 10, dead 40, wait 40, retransmit 5 Hello timer due in 00:00:06 Uptime 00:06:04 Neighbor count is 1, adjacent neighbor count is 1 Interface gre30, line protocol is UP Internet address 10.30.1.2/24, Area 0.0.0.0 Linkstate unknown Router ID 0.0.0.1, network type POINTOPOINT, cost: 20 Transmit delay is 1 sec(s), state P2P, priority 1 Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Backup Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Timer intervals configured, hello 10, dead 40, wait 40, retransmit 5 Hello timer due in 00:00:06 Uptime 00:06:04 Neighbor count is 1, adjacent neighbor count is 1 Router 2: Interface gre31, line protocol is UP Internet address 10.31.2.2/24, Area 0.0.0.0 Linkstate unknown Router ID 0.0.0.2, network type POINTOPOINT, cost: 50 Transmit delay is 1 sec(s), state P2P, priority 1 Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Backup Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Timer intervals configured, hello 10, dead 40, wait 40, retransmit 5 Hello timer due in 00:00:09 Uptime 00:06:02 Neighbor count is 1, adjacent neighbor count is 1 Interface gre30, line protocol is UP Internet address 10.30.2.2/24, Area 0.0.0.0 Linkstate unknown Router ID 0.0.0.2, network type POINTOPOINT, cost: 20 Transmit delay is 1 sec(s), state P2P, priority 1 Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Backup Designated Router (ID) 0.0.0.0, interface address 0.0.0.0 Timer intervals configured, hello 10, dead 40, wait 40, retransmit 5 Hello timer due in 00:00:09 Uptime 00:06:02 Neighbor count is 1, adjacent neighbor count is 1 Why the LANs get routed over gre31, having cost 50, and not over gre30 with lower cost 20? Has anybody got any clue? Thanks in advance for any comments, -- Josef Pojsl