Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:20:49 -0500 (EST) From: <ratbert@phoenix.aye.net> To: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> Cc: Leif Neland <root@swimsuit.internet.dk>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: route changes erratically (routed) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981027202009.29618C-100000@phoenix.aye.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981025164612.00ff9974@207.227.119.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That clears up much! -- Barrett On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > At 02:11 PM 10/25/98 -0500, ratbert@phoenix.aye.net wrote: > > > >We've had some similar problems with our portmasters, OSPF and rip2 both > >seemed to be broken on them. We assigned an x.x.x.x/28 for the dialup > >lines and the portmasters ended up broadcasting themselves as a route > >to a x.x.x.x/28 and /29s, /30s, /31s and /32s within the /28. > >Pretty much turned the routing tables of everything on our network to > >complete garbage. > > RIPv2 does not exist and most likely never will in the COM/OS and OSPF is > definately not broken. > > As for garbage, it could be cleaned up with better planning and OSPF beats > the hell out of plugging static routes. > > >What we did to solve it was add a static route on our servers and other > >routers with the portmaster as a gateway to the dialup subnet assigned > >to it. Have the static dialup ip addresses be on the same network with > >the portmasters and servers and let the portmasters proxyarp for those > >ip addresses. > > Proxyarp advocate eh? > > Unless a server is a gateway there is no reason to run a routing daemon, > unless you don't want the router to be a hop, but if the addresses are not > in the same /24 they will be. YMMV, but for simplicity and pertinence to > the original post. > > For PM2's it works best if you start with the 2nd /27, use OSPF, and set > the pool size to 32. Bam, one route! > > Should you have a slew of these you start the first on .2 (not .1) and use > pool-size=30 (it can only have 30, but still) and you get: > > .2 /31 > .4 /30 > .8 /29 > .16 /28 > > If you use .1 you get: > > .1 /32 > .2 /31 > .4 /30 > .8 /29 > .16 /29 > .24 /30 > .28 /31 > .30 /32 > > Fairly visual example of why one *should* use even boundaries. Tends to > add a bit of clutter, as you know. ;) > > Expand this to a fully populated /24 with 8 PM2's: > > .2 /31 - pm1 (pool size=30) > .4 /30 > .8 /29 > .16 /28 > .32 /27 - pm2 (pool size=32 ditto for pm3-7) > .64 /27 - pm3 > .96 /27 - pm4 > .128 /27 - pm5 > .160 /27 - pm6 > .192 /27 - pm7 > .224 /28 - pm8 (pool size=32) > .240 /29 > .248 /30 > .252 /31 > > Gosh, only 14 routes and some few lines in the Cisco or did you really want > 64 routes? Didn't think so. ;) > > >On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Leif Neland wrote: > > > >> We have 2 portmasters (PM2), several servers, a cisco to the world, and a > >> firewall to the internal network. > >> > >> The cisco is default gateway > >> > >> The servers and portmasters are on one class C, the dialins are on another > >> class C. > >> > >> Because some users have fixed ip, but can dial in on either of the > >> portmasters, I run routed on all servers, and the portmasters seem to > >> announce on which portmaster the customer is, so the route gets changed to > >> the right portmaster. > > <no_flame> > Don't use routed, ever. > </no_flame> > > You *could* use gated and OSPF for this but there is no reason with the > Cisco being the default gateway and for the size of your setup. No issue > with the servers and PM IPs on one /24 and the dial-in IPs on another. > > >> The traceroute should then go from server to pm1 or pm2 to customer. > > Only if you really want it that way. You either live with one more hop and > a slight increase to the latency or a more complex setup for a small gain. > With OSPF you could inject RIP, but again for a small gain. I didn't > bother since *most* traffic from dial-up will go out the router anyways. > > >> However, often the route changes so it goes > >> server->cisco->pm->client or > >> server->firewall->pm->client or even > >> server->cisco->(router at our uplink)->cisco->(router at our uplink) etc. > > The first 2 are ok, but the 3rd? What version of COMOS on the PM2's? > > >> If I constantly pings the client, I gets pauses where the pings are lost. > > How are your network collisions? Sounds like it may be bad cabling since > at least some packets are making it. > > >> What do I do wrong? Shouldn't I use routed on the servers, but only route > >> default gateway to the cisco, and let it handle the pm1/pm2 route changes? > >> Or should I have one server running routed? or gated? or what? > > Use OSPF between the PM's and the Cisco, verify propagation, lose the > static routes, turn off routed on the servers, and all is well. > > I've got templates for the PMs so it would be a matter of changing a few > things and pasting it in a terminal window. Takes less than 10 minutes to > convert. One hitch is I don't have access to a Cisco at the moment so > would need either access to one (for just one IP - access control is good > :) or some pointers for Cisco OSPF, since I'm a bit rusty. Not something I > do often, after all once you set it... > > cheers! > > > Jeff Mountin - Unix Systems TCP/IP networking > jeff@mountin.net > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.981027202009.29618C-100000>