I'm attempting to redistribute a static route into EIGRP on a 3750 switch and pass it to an upstream router, sadly however this isn't working, or at least the route isn't being recieved on the upstream router. [code]
We have a 14 offfice MPLS network. All offices have Cisco 3750s running OSPF which replicate route tables via our providers BGP peers. I am introducing a new network in our SF office which is not directly connected so in SF we have a static route "ip route 172.16.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.100.1. I want our other offices to learn this route route via OSPF so that they know how to get to the new network. My problem is that of course remote sites do not see our static routes and i have tried to add this via ospf but the switch will not propagate this route because it is not directly connected to the switch in SF.
router ospf 1 log-adjacency-changes network 10.2.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 2.2.2.2
I have a 3750 switch and I am trying to configure PBR (route-maps) in it.But when I try to apply the policy to a vlan interface the policy does not show in the interface.So I can not use PBR to choose my default gateway!Question: Does PBR work in a 3750 switch? Can PBR be configured in a vlan interface? There is any problem with the IOS that I do not know?
Is it possible to track a IPSLA operation and if it goes down track a static route which will be removed from EIGRP process. I have read through documentation and have come stuck. I have the below configured and have shown the features installed. How would I go about getting the below static route injected into EIGRP only if the IPSLA operation in ok?
We have a cisco 3750-48 port switch.We have a few SVI's configured and some static routes configured.I had created a new interface vlan and gave it an IP. I can ping the gateway.
Now I want to add a static route to go out that interface.when I add: ip route 10.x.x.x 255.255.255.0 10.52.10.1
it eccepts it (no errors) But, it does not show in the routing table nor in the config? How to add the static route to go out that vlan interface.
I have a new MPLS circuit being stood up for my site; it’s going to replace a site to site VPN connection to our "Headquarters." I want to test this without affecting my production networks. Without getting into alot of details, the admin at the remote site is not very cooperative and basically doesn't want to set this up and I don't have access to his switching/routing. He is prepared to do minimal tasks if necessary. Ultimately, I am looking to test the new Vlan, once successful, route the traffic away from the Site to Site VPN connection to the MPLS circuit. Here is what I plan on doing, I need to determine if it is going to work.
LAN in my office uses EIGRP for routing. MPLS (10.1.1.253) uses OSPF (area 0) and BGP. Currently, traffic destined to headquarters (10.10.1.1/24) uses the default route on a CAT3750 pointing to the firewall (ASA5520) (10.1.1.254).Create new VLAN/DHCP scope to use as a test Vlan to test the new MPLS circuit. 10.1.199.0/24Create static routes on 3750 destined for headquarters for L2L VPN traffic pointing to firewall so traffic to headquarters remains on the L2L connection. ip route 10.10.1.1 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.254 (once I share routes with OSPF, routes to Headquarters will be advertised over the MPLS)Create OSPF instance on the 3750 advertising only the new subnet so that the MPLS network knows to route this traffic over the MPLS for return traffic from headquarters. (this is where it is grey as I don’t know OSPF at all) The switch has a L3 interface which the MPLS router uses as its gateway, so there is direct communication.router-ospf 0 network 10.1.199.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 4. On 3750 create a PBR for the new subnet so that it is routed over the MPLS, (imagine test PC is 10.1.199.100), the remaining production subnets will use the static routes and ignore the OSPF routes because of the shorter administrative distance.Will the PBR route win over the static route for that one subnet? Is that all I need in the OSPF configuration? I see some configs that have neighbor statements with costs, authentication types etc..
We have two sites: 192.168.100.x and 192.168.101.x currently connected via IPsec VPN. On each end we have a Cisco ASA 5505. However, each site also has an MPLS VPN with intentions to move all traffic to this link. Will this work on the ASA? We need to make sure traffic can hit the ASA @ site A on the inside interface and trafiic will forward to the MPLS VPN router which then handles the traffic. Too, will it cause any problems in bi-directional flow between the two sites?
I am trying to implement static route tracking on a Catalyst 3560G ( WS-C3560G-48PS, IOS version 12.2(35)SE5 and SW image C3560-IPBASE-M). The configuration is as follows:
track 101 rtr 1 reachability ! rtr 1 type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 10.199.101.2 rtr schedule 1 life forever start-time now ! IP address 10.199.101.2 is reachable via ICMP (its the next-hop router).
The static routes configured are the following:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.199.101.2 track 101 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.200.52.1 20
But only the secondary route(ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.200.52.1 20) its being installed on the routing table by the switch.
I have an issue with my setup of a 6500 switch (12.2(33)SXI9).We have a 6500 switch with several VRF's. For a certain VRF I would like to redistribute a static route in EIGRP. After doing so I don't see the static route on my eigrp neighbor.
This is a overview of my config. I'm basically redistributing only my static route for this vrf in eigrp.
I found a similar case in which the solution was adding a metric to the static route. (eg. redistribute static route-map static-eigrp-pp metric 10000 100 255 1 1500). But the strange thing is that we don't have this issue on a similar machine (same IOS, same config setup). [code]
I have run into a problem testing static route failovers using ECMP. I have an edge device (SUT) that has 2 NIC interfaces to an internal Loopback. Each NIC is a unique Gi port on an 7609 VLAN tagged with unique IP subnets. The 7600 is configured to route the loopback via the 2 NIC. I am using CEF in the network for other traffic performance testing. Using an external sniffer we can verify that when a ping is initiated externall to the SUT loopback a specific path is selected by the router.
Now, when the selected path is taken out of server (pulling cable for example), the 7609 is not clearing the routing table to indicate that particular path is down and failing over to the secondary path. Other things I have noticed is the show ip cef still shows both peers as well as the arp table but the interface shows down (show interface gi1/21 for example). I am running 15.1. My understanding is that since the ports are directly connected to the router, the ports should be detected as down and any association of the IP for the down port should removed. This should trigger the static route to update the static route for the end destination to use the second path and traffic should continue.
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(17r)S2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)BOOTLDR: Cisco IOS Software, c7600s72033_rp Software (c7600s72033_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 15.1(1)S1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
I am working on Nexus 7010 with NX-OS 5.1.5. I have to delete the static route 10.10.0.0/16 via 10.16.0.21. [code] I try to remove the route with the command "no ip route 10.10.0.0/16 10.16.0.21" and I have the message below % Route not deleted, it does not exist..I don't understand why I have this message because the static route exist.
On 1811W Router i have OSPF running and i do not need this static route.ip route 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.20.3,when i try to delete i get error ,1811w#,config t,Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.,1811w(config)#no ip route 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.20.3,%No matching route to delete,1811w(config)#.
A check out a network segment and want to know why SwA has a static route to SwB if SwA already has a Default GW to Core?
(SwA, SwB - Catalyst3560, Core - Catalyst4948)Note, there are distribute list on SwA - it does not has any OSPF route (exclude O*IA).
Does this mean when SwA send out packet with DA 10.5.64.0/26, Core will use only L2 switching (instead of L3)? Is this more effectively for Core Switch?
Pleace check my reasoning: 1. When use a static route: SwA receive packet from Vlan 20 with DA 10.5.64.0/26 it will strip out Dest. MAC and replace it with MAC of SwB. Core will switch this packet to SwB based on mac add. table (l2 switching)
2. When SwA has only Default gateway and receive packet from Vlan20 with DA 10.5.64.0/26 it replace Dest. MAC with Core MAC. Core receive this packet, lookup route table for 10.5.64.0 entry and forward packet base on this.
I try to enter the command "ip policy route-map" on 3750's interface. But the command doesn't appear. Why? Whereas I see several times that this command is possible on this switch. What I have to do to enter this command?
I have a 3750 stack with several vlans and svi's. We have had no need to route between them until now. Here is what I have done...
Created the vlans.. vlan 1 and vlan 25 Given each vlan an ip address vlan 1 10.0.0.2 and vlan 25 is 192.168.5.250 no shut on everything ip routing sdm routing preferred default route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 (isp)
If I'm on the switch I can ping anything on vlan 1 and anything on vlan 25 (the device I'm pinging on vlan25 is the svi and a dsl router 192.168.5.1) From a computer on vlan 1 I can ping the gateway/svi for vlan 1 and the svi for vlan 25 but no devices including the dsl router which pinged fine. If I put the computer on an access port for vlan 25 I can ping everything just fine on vlan 25 but not vlan 1 (gateway set correctly)
As a test I put in a static route ip route 195.113.20.11 255.255.255.255 192.168.5.1
I did a traceroute from the switch and it comes through great. I did a traceroute from the computer and it hits my gateway of 10.0.0.2 vlan 1 and stops.
I have recently set the sdm prefer template to routing to allow route-maps and rebooted the stack:
3750GCORE#show sdm preferThe current template is "desktop routing" template.The selected template optimizes the resources inthe switch to support this level of features for8 routed interfaces and 1024 VLANs. number of unicast mac addresses: 3K number of IPv4 IGMP groups + multicast routes: 1K number of IPv4 unicast routes: 11K number of directly-connected IPv4 hosts: 3K number of indirect IPv4 routes: 8K number of IPv4 policy based routing aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC qos aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC security aces: 1K
I still cannot apply a route map to a vlan interface however:
I have preconfigured the route map as per below to take traffic from one particular client and pass it to the inside interface of our ASA firewall:(yes i know 192.9.0.0 is a public network, its an inherited problem that is in process of being remedied!)
ip access-list extended TEST permit ip host 192.9.216.234 any permit icmp host 192.9.216.234 any permit tcp host 192.9.216.234 any route-map TEST_MAP permit 9 match ip address TEST set ip default next-hop 192.9.201.10
When i do the following I get this error from debug:
3750GCORE#config t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. 3750GCORE(config)#int vlan 216 3750GCORE(config-if)#ip policy route-map TEST_MAP 3750GCORE(config-if)# 007804: Feb 8 03:16:55: %PLATFORM_PBR-3-UNSUPPORTED_RMAP: Route-map TEST_MAP not supported for Policy-Based Routing
when I show the running config, the route-map is not there.3750GCORE#show running-config int vlan 216Building configuration...Current configuration : 205 bytes!interface Vlan216
I have a 3750 at a branch running EIGRP connected to two routers that both have configured:
access-list 1 deny 0.0.0.0 access-list 1 permit any access-list 2 permit 0.0.0.0 access-list 2 deny any
router eigrp 1distribute-list 1 out FastEthernet0/0distribute-list 2 in FastEthernet0/0
Due to this recently applied config the switch become unreachable from the outside and cannot ping anything. Everything connected to it works fine. I was able to remote into it from a switch behind it and noticed that the 3750 has no default route in the routing table. I do see a default route in the eigrp topology table. How to make the switch learn a default route maintaining the existing configuration on the routers.
Cannot set route map on interface vlan. which in non default vrf on Cisco 3750.IOS c3750-ipservicesk9-mz.122-55.SE.bin sdm prefer route in enable ip vrf users rd 200:0 route-target export 200:0 route-target import 200:0 interface Vlan201 description Users 1 ip vrf forwarding users ip address 10.31.76.1 255.255.252.0 ip helper-address 10.31.4.57 route-map fromuser permit 10 match ip address fromuser set ip next-hop 10.31.128.155 When I enter "ip policy route-map fromuser" to interface Vlan 201 I heve the message:
% Remove VRF configuration from interface Vlan201 first
I have a client with a 3750x stack. We've upgraded it to IP Services. We have a simple PBR setup. One access-list to forward traffic from a specific LAN ip to another gateway on the network.
I go to vlan1 (default vlan) to apply the PBR and the command takes with no errors, but do a "show run" and it doesn't show up under the interface.
I go to vlan1 and apply a PBR that doesn't exist and the command takes with no errors, and is listed under the interface in the config
I can apply the PBR globally and appears to work, but we can't have it there based on other issues it creates.
config: (all tracks are up) C3750_stack#show sdm prefer The current template is "desktop routing" template.
Actually i have a design from my customer who have ( Cisco core switch 3750 (allports fiber ports) which is connected to L2 switches , these switches carry servers and end users .the only routing protocol on the access switches is static route ,
My question how can i route the traffic from the server to the end user , as the the server is not direct connect to the core switch.
Here is my configuration below , i have upgraded my C-3750 switch IOS from IPbase to IPservices , after upgrading i have tried to apply PBR on my Vlan 4 and failed , when i am tying to apply route-map to Vlan4 the command was taking but i am unable to see the route-map when sh run , i am giving the command as "ip policy route-map TTSL" in my Vlan4 , below is the configuration.
In Vlan2 i have connected one ISP and Vlan4 I have connected one ISP , my local subnets are 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x , now i want to route the 192.168.1.x traffic from Vlan2 and 192.168.2.x Traffic from Vlan4 .
sh boot coreswitch#sh boot BOOT path-list : flash:c3750-ipservices-mz.122-35.SE5/c3750-ipservices-mz.122-35.SE5.bin
I need to use a 3750 switch running 12.2 code to route between two networks in a test setup.Switch#sh verCisco IOS Software, C3750 Software (C3750-IPSERVICES-M), Version 12.2(25)SEE2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by Cisco Systems, Inc. The idea for the test setup is 3750 emulates a client's live network which is two routers having a site-to-site tunnel connecting from their ISPs. This will allow me to test the tunnel configuration with the router configs that are in production but replacing one of the routers with an ASA.
i have an issue to connect a trunk between cisco switch and extreme switch i have many vlans that i want to cross via a link between cisco 3750 switch and a Extreme Alpine 3800 switch
I am able to create above smartport macro on Catalyst 3760 & 6500, but not on 2960 & 3750 (see below):switch(config)#macro ? auto Macro autoexecution settings global Enter global macro configuration
We have a 6509 series of core switches and 3750 series of L2 switches, There is no default gateway or any static routes to any IP.VLAN 1 is made admin down and another vlan is used for all communication here in this environment
Attached is configuration for reference But still I am able to take telnet or SSH. I want to know how telnet or SSH or tacacs authentication happens without any static or default route.
I have two 3750-X configured to be a stack and I am planning to re-rack these somewhere else. What I would like to know is what are the effects of having the master switch itself lose power? Does it immediately just make the member take over master (there should be no election since there are only 2 switches??) and there would be no loss of connectivity?
