However, the 6509 IOS only provides the option to track an interface. Is this a feature that's available in later IOS versions?
Is there another way to track these routes? The subnets are used for WAN links at a HQ and DR site and we are doing a specific PBR (sending all http/https traffic) using these subnets. If that WAN link goes down, we want to be able to utilize a backup WAN link to support that traffic.
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 am trying to track down an application response problem on my network (the traffic goes through a 6509 and FWSM).I noticed in one of my WireShark captures, that the client at times seems to be sending ackowledgements (ACKs) over and over again, and I'm not sure if this indicates a problem/ retransmission.
Basically, a web server is delivering images to the client, but end users are complaining of slowness and freezes.Wire-Shark has not flagged this as a problem (comes up "green")
I currently have a couple of 6509 chassis (router/switches) with the following hardware blades:
x3 48 ports x1 NAM x2 Sup720 Running 12.2(18)SXF3
I am keeping the four Sup720 modules and have purchased new versions of the others blades including two new 6509-E chassis?Can I take my stand-by Sup720 out of the production machine and insert it into the new chassis?
I currently have a couple of 6509 chassis (router/switches) with the following hardware blades:
x3 48 ports x1 NAM x2 Sup720
Running 12.2(18)SXF3.I am keeping the four Sup720 modules and have purchased new versions of the others blades including two new 6509-E chassis. Can I take my stand-by Sup720 out of the production machine and insert it into the new chassis?
I have a 1941 router configured for Policy based routing with two ISPs.Two static default routes configured to point the gateways of respoective ISPs with same metric.But the problem is, packets are going throug the one ISP only while doing traceroute.
N/W connectivity:
ISP1-----> <----------------------> LAN1 | Router | ISP-------> <----------------------> LAN 2
Below is my configuration :
Current configuration : 5958 bytes ! ! Last configuration change at 05:18:56 UTC Mon Jun 25 2012 ! version 15.0 service timestamps debug datetime msec service timestamps log datetime msec no service password-encryption
I have a pair of N5K's, down stream from them are from Fabric Interconnects and a UCS chassis. Upstream is a stack of 3750's then ASA5510's.
I am trying to backup the config to our TFTP server and I am getting 'no route to host'.. I tried to add a route, and found that N5K uses VRF's for routing?? .. After some looking I see there are two base VRF's 'management' and 'default'.. the management VRF has a default gateway entry and a single interface member (mgmt0).. when I look at the default VRF .. there are no interface members or routing entries.. Ok, I can handle that just add some interfaces and add a default gateway. Then I get lost:
I'm able to access the UCS manager..... so how the heck is that even possible if there's no gateway defined anywhere (or maybe I'm missing something?). My theory was: add all other ports but mgmt0 to the default VRF, and have the default gateway point out of the uplinks (a vPC).. but wasn't sure how that would affect anything and mainly just wanted to know how I was able to access the UCS manager in light of the fact that there is no default gateway anywhere that I could see...
I would like to configure few routings on my Cisco router 871 in order to allow my employees to have access only to specific websites.However, since some websites have dynamic IPs propably the route that I will create will not work.
My question is, can I configure a route or is there any other way to configure this permission based on the hostname/domain? For example, if I want to permit access to this website www.surveymonkey.com (75.98.93.51) instead of configuring:
ip route 75.98.93.51 255.255.255.255 192.168.10.250
is there any way to configure based on the url.. in order to be able to recognise this host correctly??
Im new to cisco routes, Im traing to configure a 1711 routes with a dsl 2wire routes, my problem is that Im able to ping anywhere in the routes, but when Im on my computer I can only ping the interfaces on the router but no the 2wire route that gives me access to the internet.
My computer is getting ip addres 192.168.200.100 when I ping th 192.168.1.76 is fine, but when I try to ping the 192.168.1.254 does not work, Im assuming the cisco has activated a dinamic route from .76 to .254, but it is not working, why?
Here is the router configuration
Router#show runBuilding configuration... Current configuration : 1183 bytes!version 12.3service timestamps debug datetime msecservice timestamps log datetime msecno service password-encryption!hostname Router!boot-start-markerboot-end-marker!!no aaa new-model!resource policy!memory-size iomem 25ip subnet-zero!!no ip dhcp [Code]....
6500 - version (s72033_rp-ENTSERVICESK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(18)SXF17a.I have two ISP's. I have created two defaults as follow & secondary route does not work. [code] After disabling the interface to ISP1, backup routes does not work. [code]
I have a scenario which is fairly common - certain servers are accessed from the internet via a Load Balancer, and since seeing true client IP is a requirement, the return traffic path must go back through the load balancer. However, I do not want to route all traffic via the load balancer for obvious performance reasons. Internal traffic should be routed directly by the Layer 3 switch, which has a default route of a Firewall.
My plan is to use a VRF for the load balancer and any applicable servers, which works fine. But now I need to join the VRF's routing table with the switch's GRT (global routing table) so that internal traffic works. What is the best way to do this? For scalability reasons I'd like to avoid static routes and I see many examples using BGP, but in this case it seems overkill since everything is on a single logical switch. Can I use OSPF instead? Or a different method? The Supervisors will be 2Ts, so IOS 15.0 will likely be running.
Is there a way to set static routes per VLAN?Example VLAN 100 sends all traffic to 192.168.1.1 and VLAN 200 sends all traffic to 10.1.1.1. (2800 Series RTR)I have 5 networks that have their own gateway to the Internet via satellite link. Those networks run over the same infrastructure on separate VLANs. They frequently send traffic to each other, which gets sent over a slow SAT link. I introduced a router to the network and would like to set all my hosts default gateway to the local routers sub-interface then have a static route that send all traffic that is not on one of my 5 networks back to that VLANs respective SAT modem to get routed out over the Internet.
How filter inbound routes in Cisco ASA OSPF? Because Cisco ASA has no "distibute-list" command for OSFP process configuration, I try to use "filter-list" command in area definition. So, I try to use next configuration:
we have a 2800 series router functioning as our internet router and it will only forward packets to addresses with host entries in the routing table even if the network is directly connected.
On a 4507 v12.2(20)EW, the connected subnets which are declared in the ospf instance are not propagated to the MPLS carrier router.Only the static routes which are redistributed in the ospf instance are propagated to the MPLS carrier router.
I have a Routing issue with one of my SG300-28P units. It has several Trunked VLANs. I think I habe Narrowed it down to a Default Route on the offending SG300 though I cannot see to change or delete any of the Static Routes on the unit. I can Add Routes with no issues, but once Added I cannot Edit or delete them.
I'm a bit perplexed atm with trying to set up multiple failover routes on a 2821 router. Let me say that I have more experieince in a switched network as routing is seldom required where I work atm. Here's my problem. I have a routing table set up as follows but only the primary routes work. The failover routes will not kick in once the primary route is not there.
ip route 10.32.11.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.8.11 ip route 10.32.11.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.24.11 100 ip route 10.32.12.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.8.12 ip route 10.32.12.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.24.12 100 ip route 10.32.14.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.8.14 ip route 10.32.14.0 255.255.255.0 128.32.24.14 100
Ip addresses are not exact but it gets the point across.
Why the failover routes are not failing over? The failover routes work if I remove the primary route from the config.
I am observing some strange behaviour related to the routing table, almost all external routes and some inter-area routes are getting refreshed every 10 seconds.
I am getting more than 1000 entries after running 'sh ip route | i 00:00:0', these external routes are being advertised by a neighbor 6500 which redistributing these static routes.
Is it possible to issue eigrp leaking routes on catalyst 6500 running IOS 12.2-33SXI9 on gigabitethernet interfaces? or is there another way to acomplish this?
I have a 3560 with IP base that is acting as a true EIGRP stub router today. It advertises local routes to the upstream service provider router and receives a default route.
Now I want to connect a 3900 ISR as a voice gateway. The 3560 does not seem to be advertising any routes to the 3900. Ok the EIGRP stub doc says this:
Only specified routes are propagated from the remote (stub) router. The router responds to queries for summaries, connected routes, redistributed static routes, external routes, and internal routes with the message "inaccessible." A router that is configured as a stub will send a special peer information packet to all neighboring routers to report its status as a stub router.
# Any neighbor that receives a packet informing it of the stub status will not query the stub router for any routes, and a router that has a stub peer will not query that peer. The stub router will depend on the distribution router to send the proper updates to all peers.
I guess I don't understand why the stub advertises local routes to the upstream ISP router but does not seem to advertise routes to the 3900. Does the stub identify the ISP router as the distribution router somehow, thus differentiating it from the 3900? If so, how is this done?
show ip eigrp neighbor detail on the 3900:
EIGRP-IPv4 Neighbors for AS(100) H Address Interface Hold Uptime SRTT RTO Q Seq (sec) (ms) Cnt Num
I have a WS-C3750G-24T-S layer 3 switch and I need to configure independent routes for a specific network, I'm trying to use VRF but it is not working for me. I tried using route-map but it seems the switch doesn't support that, so I'm stuck with VRF, but I think I'm not doing it right. The topology is as follows:
I have a network directly connected to a vlan and I need to forward all the traffic I get on this VLAN using a tunnel to a router. I think the problem is that in order to use the tunnel I need to utilize another VLAN which isn't part of that VRF. I attach the configuration I'm using to better understand what I'm trying to do:
layer-3 switch:
ip vrf TEST rd 1:1 interface Tunnel1 ip vrf forwarding TEST ip address 172.17.0.1 255.255.255.252 tunnel source 10.245.0.9 tunnel destination 10.250.4.31
[Code]....
And this is how my routing table looks on this router:
172.17.0.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 172.17.0.0 is directly connected, Tunnel4 C 10.250.4.0/24 is directly connected, Vlan404 S 10.245.0.8/29 [1/0] via 10.250.4.1 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.1.60.15
If a router receives EIGRP (AD90) routes, and is configured to redistribute thoes routes into BGP(AD20), why does the RIB show only the incoming EIGRP routes and not the redistributed bgp routes? Are redistributed routes considered for RIB entry in the router that is doing the redistribution
I was trying to find if it's possible to add the option for static routes for DHCP clients on Cisco IOS DHCP config mode. I'm looking to add a settings as defined on RFC 3442, like this one, set on ISC DHCPd server:
Global settings:
option rfc3442-classless-static-routes code 121 = array of integer 8; option ms-classless-static-routes code 249 = array of integer 8;
Is there any way to have my Cisco 877W Router alter from using one static route to another static route when another router on the network is reporting destination host unreachable?
Router 1 (192.168.2.253) Dialer0 -> ppoe to internet Vlan1 -> local 192.168.2.0/24 Router 2 (192.168.2.254) Dialer0 -> ppoe to managed VPN (172.16.28.1) Vlan1 -> local 192.168.2.0/24
Router 2 is connected to another network through a managed VPN and that network also has internet access. I want to be able to have two routes to the internet on Router 2. And when Router 1 internet goes down packets get routed through the VPN instead.
I currently have on Router 2
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.253 ip route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 Dialer0 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.28.5 250
Which does nothing when Router 1 has its Dialer0 interface shutdown, or goes offline completely.I suspect I could reverse the setup and have everything routed through the VPN by default and then if / when Dialer0 interface goes down it would switch to using Router 2, but if the problem is in the remote network and interface Dialer0 stays up, it would probably do the same thing... nothing.All devices mentioned are Cisco 877W routers with ADSL and a bunch of fast ethernet interfaces.
Is there a way in EIGRP to prefer external routes versus internal routes. EIGRP always picks up internal routes as long as they are available, no matter if external routes have better metric. Our Scenario is that we have DMVPN hub and spoke topology running EIGRP 101. The Core routers also on EIGRP 101 prefer EIGRP 101 routes. We have the new MPLS network running BGP and redistributing these BGP routes into EIGRP 101. The core routers prefer EIGRP 101 routes (internal) to redistributed BGP (external) routes.
we've had an issue with our network, we have 2 6509 connected with redundancy, which are connected with 2 x 4900 Switches, from which are connected to a ESX Chassis for visualization, the thing is that the ESX stopped working, and the 4900 switches, and the main core were suffering from overload, they hang on it very well, in order to stop the overload, one of the links to the ESX Chassis were disconnected from one of the 4900 switches. The CPU usage from the 4900 and the core(6509) went down below 40%, and then they started to migrate the virtual servers from the chassis to another 2 chassis that were added right after. They were actually working well, but suddenly the 6509 changed to the other supervisor after everything was OK. We were wondering what could have been the cause of this, maybe the virtual servers migrations, maybe the overload from the ESX ? We also had a few question, is there any need to reload the cores every few months as a planned task ? Because the cores have been up for more than 1 year. And also is there any kind of of tool to monitor the CPU status, or the status overall from the cores or the switches ?
The have around 80 staff and I think the current infrastructure is overkill for the size of the company. The current kit is old and they have no GB ethernet ports. They currently have:-
Core Switch: 1x Cisco c6509with a 48 port fast ethernet module (WS-X6248-RJ-45) and an 8 port fibre module (WS-X6408A-GBIC)
I'm looking to replace this with something with 72 ethernet ports and 8 fibre ports
Access Switches: 2x 3500Replacement needs at least 48 ports and 2 fibre modules each
and 2x 5500Replacement needs at least 72 ports and 2 fibre modules each.
I have two ISPs. Each is on it's own subnet connected to the 6509 MSFC/Switch. FW1 is on 100.1.100.0/30 and FW2 is on 200.1.200.0/30 subnet. My goal is route all traffice going to the Internet from subnet 10.133.3.0/24 to FW1 and all other subnets across the organization to FW2. I am not sure if I need to use ACL / Static route combo, or just a static routes or ACLS?
We have a Catalyst 6509 switch, and we hope to use policy based routing to redirect http traffic to my proxy server, where I can find the configuration example?
I would like to ask you if it's possibile to block routing between some Vlan for just once of them.
Maybe I can explain better:
I've got a Cisco 6509 with 4 configured vlan interfaces Int Vlan 10 10.10.1.0/24 Int Vlan 20 10.10.2.0/24 Int Vlan 30 10.10.3.0/24 Int Vlan 40 10.10.4.0/24
Vlan "10" is the phone voip Vlan and it must not talk with the others Vlan. The others Vlan can comunicate normally except with Vlan "10".
Pratically Vlan "10" needs to be isolated from the others.
This equirement comes becouse Vlan 10 is wireless and has the WEP key encryption (very weak protocol). Some Phone couldn't support the WPA2 key and I need to avoid an unauthorized external client, cracking the WEP key and connecting to this WiFi, could have free access to the others Vlan.
