Re: Routing when using two interfaces/networks.
- From: Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:19:31 +0100
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
In article <hiv6ps$fk1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@xxxxxxxxx> writes:Hi.
We have some hard-to-identify network problems at
a site and I'm now thinking that it might have something
to do with how the routing is setup in the VMS system.
The VMS system (the "prod" system) has two interfaces :
$ tcpip sh inter
Interface IP_Addr Network mask
LO0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0
WE0 193.183.98.2 255.255.255.0
WE1 10.32.137.1 255.255.255.0
The 193.183.x.x is the "old" network that will be removed
anytime(tm). The 10.32.x.x network is where most of the other
stuff (term-servers, PC-clients and so on) are. Note that
most other equipment on 10.32.x.x are on other subnets then
10.32.137.x. The only other host on the 10.32.137.x are mainly
the other VMS systems. All "user" equipment are on other
10.32.x.x networks.
The current routing looks like this :
$ tcpip sh route
DYNAMIC
Type Destination Gateway
AN 0.0.0.0 193.183.98.251
AN 10.32.137.0/24 10.32.137.1
AH 10.32.137.1 10.32.137.1
AH 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
AN 193.183.98.0/24 193.183.98.2
AH 193.183.98.2 193.183.98.2
st
$ tcpip sh route/perm
PERMANENT
Type Destination Gateway
PN 0.0.0.0 193.183.98.251
The "dev" system has only one interface and looks like this :
$ tcpip sho inter
Interface IP_Addr Network mask
LO0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0
WE1 10.32.137.3 255.255.255.0
$ tcpip sh rout
DYNAMIC
Type Destination Gateway
AN 0.0.0.0 10.32.137.254
AN 10.32.137.0/24 10.32.137.3
AH 10.32.137.3 10.32.137.3
AH 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
$ tcpip sh rout/perm
PERMANENT
Type Destination Gateway
PN 0.0.0.0 10.32.137.254
The "problems" we are seeing are e.g. :
- Troubles ("hangs") when FTP copying from "prod" to "dev".
- Intermittent slow access from PC clients.
My guess is that the disturbances are due to the fact that all
routing goes through the 193.183.98.251 gateway, even between
different 10.32.x.x subnets, right ? And that the solution
probably would be to simply move the default router from
the 193.183.98.251 gateway to the 10.32.137.254 gateway on
the system with two networks ?
Jan-Erik.
Shouldn't your 10... network be routed 10.0.0.0/8 such that the internal
traffic to the other subnets is NOT routed through to the 193.183.98.251
gateway?
That is my guess also. But actualy route everything (0.0.0.0)
through the 10... gateway (10.32.137.254).
And all traffic is "internal", 193... is just the old network.
Actualy, the 193... net is more "internal" since it mainly have
some older DECservers left at the moment.
Our plan is to get rid of all of the 193... network, but right
*now* there is still some of it left.
Anyway, I'll probably just try to switch the default route (0.0.0.0)
from 193.183.98.251 to 10.32.137.254 and see what happens... :-)
Jan-Erik.
.
- References:
- Routing when using two interfaces/networks.
- From: Jan-Erik Soderholm
- Routing when using two interfaces/networks.
- Prev by Date: Routing when using two interfaces/networks.
- Next by Date: Thread on Intrusion/Vulnerability of OpenVMS - Last Spring
- Previous by thread: Routing when using two interfaces/networks.
- Next by thread: Re: Routing when using two interfaces/networks.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
