Routing when using two interfaces/networks.

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.

In article <hiv6ps$fk1$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> writes: >Hi. >We have some hard-to-identify network problems at >a site and I'm now thinking that it might have something >to do with how the routing is setup in the VMS system. > >The VMS system (the "prod" system) has two interfaces : > >$ 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? -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article <hiv6ps$fk1$1@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> 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.

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > > $ 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 If you are transitioning to the 10.* network: Change your default route to 10.32.137.254 Add a permanent route 193.183.0.0/16 /gateway=193.183.98.251 Traffic destined for a 193 dstination that is not within the hosts subet should then use the 193 interface and be sent to te 193.183.98.251 router. Traffic destined to the internet or to a 10.* host not part of the 10.32.137 network will be routed via the default route and use the 10.32.137.1 interfce to reach the .254 router.

On Jan 17, 3:28=A0pm, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> wrote: > 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 =A0 IP_Addr =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Network mask > > =A0 LO0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 255.0.0.0 > =A0 WE0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0193.183.98.2 =A0 =A0255.255.255.0 > =A0 WE1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.1 =A0 =A0 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 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DYNAMIC > > Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0Gateway > > AN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.183= ..98.251 > AN =A0 =A010.32.137.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.1 > AH =A0 =A010.32.137.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10.32.137.1 > AH =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 127.0.0.1 > AN =A0 =A0193.183.98.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.183.98.2 > AH =A0 =A0193.183.98.2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0193.183.98.= 2 > st > $ tcpip sh route/perm > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PERMANENT > > Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0Gateway > > PN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.183= ..98.251 > > The "dev" system has only one interface and looks like this : > > $ tcpip sho inter > > Interface =A0 IP_Addr =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Network mask > > =A0 LO0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 255.0.0.0 > =A0 WE1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.3 =A0 =A0 255.255.255.0 > > $ tcpip sh rout > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DYNAMIC > > Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = Gateway > > AN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.3= 2.137.254 > AN =A0 =A010.32.137.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10.32.137.3 > AH =A0 =A010.32.137.3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.13= 7.3 > AH =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0127.0.= 0.1 > > $ tcpip sh rout/perm > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PERMANENT > > Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = Gateway > > PN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.3= 2.137.254 > > 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. Two questions here: - Does your production systems depend heavily on TCP/IP connections (most likely yes) and on which subnet do most of the clients reside? - Is the 10.32.x.x network subdivided with routers or is it a single network like 10.32.0.0/16? If you have problems in the current setup with traffic between prod and dev, you might have similar problems between prod and it's clients when you change the default routing. Bart Zorn

Bart.Zorn@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 17, 3:28 pm, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> > wrote: >> 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. > > Two questions here: > > - Does your production systems depend heavily on TCP/IP connections > (most likely yes) and on which subnet do most of the clients reside? Yes. There are some older LAT based DECservern that I think are on both nets/interfaces. > - Is the 10.32.x.x network subdivided with routers or is it a single > network like 10.32.0.0/16? Not, thgere are 5-10 10.32.x.0/8 nets. The VMS boxes are more or less alone in one of them. All user equipment (termserver and PC's mainly) are on other 10.32 subnets. > > If you have problems in the current setup with traffic between prod > and dev, you might have similar problems between prod and it's clients > when you change the default routing. Hm, maybe. I'll probably do some tests according to the post from JF anyway. That is, having routing to both nets setup. > > Bart Zorn

On 17.1.2010 16:28, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > 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. > > > The default gateway should be the one which routes the most traffic. In this case the gateway at 10.32.137.254. Nothing prevents you from adding network entries for the different 193.*.*.* subnets which all are reachable through the gateway at 193.183.98.251. Of course you can do supernetting like said in another post. Provided that you don't have really old routers which don't understand supernetting. Kari

Kari Uusim�ki wrote: > On 17.1.2010 16:28, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: >> 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. >> >> >> > > The default gateway should be the one which routes the most traffic. In > this case the gateway at 10.32.137.254. > > Nothing prevents you from adding network entries for the different > 193.*.*.* subnets which all are reachable through the gateway at > 193.183.98.251. > > Of course you can do supernetting like said in another post. Provided > that you don't have really old routers which don't understand supernetting. > Or beeing such a realy old sys manager that doesn't understand supernetting... :-) Anyway, the plan is to simply switch all routing to the "new" network and just let the "old" network die... Jan-Erik. > > Kari >

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > Anyway, the plan is to simply switch all routing to the "new" > network and just let the "old" network die... This means that any packets destined to the 192.168 subnet will first travel to the 10.* router which will then have to have a route to the 192.168 subnet. If your machine has physical connections to both subnets, it is really easy to just create a route to the 192.168 subnet if it already has a 192.168 interface. When the old network is fully decommissioned, you can remove both the route and the 192.168 interface at the same time.

JF Mezei wrote: > Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > >> Anyway, the plan is to simply switch all routing to the "new" >> network and just let the "old" network die... > > This means that any packets destined to the 192.168 subnet will first > travel to the 10.* router which will then have to have a route to the > 192.168 subnet. > > If your machine has physical connections to both subnets, it is really > easy to just create a route to the 192.168 subnet if it already has a > 192.168 interface. > > When the old network is fully decommissioned, you can remove both the > route and the 192.168 interface at the same time. > If I'm not wrong, the 192... network has very little IP equipment anyway. Mostly LAT based old DECservers. Well, we have to go through the old net to list what's left there anyway. :-)

On Jan 18, 4:20=A0am, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> wrote: > Bart.Z...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jan 17, 3:28 pm, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> > > wrote: > >> 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 =A0 IP_Addr =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Network mask > > >> =A0 LO0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 255.0.0.0 > >> =A0 WE0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0193.183.98.2 =A0 =A0255.255.255.0 > >> =A0 WE1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.1 =A0 =A0 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 > > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DYNAMIC > > >> Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0Gateway > > >> AN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.= 183.98.251 > >> AN =A0 =A010.32.137.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.= 1 > >> AH =A0 =A010.32.137.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10.32.13= 7.1 > >> AH =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 127.0.= 0.1 > >> AN =A0 =A0193.183.98.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.183.98.2 > >> AH =A0 =A0193.183.98.2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0193.183.= 98.2 > >> st > >> $ tcpip sh route/perm > > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PERMANENT > > >> Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0Gateway > > >> PN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.= 183.98.251 > > >> The "dev" system has only one interface and looks like this : > > >> $ tcpip sho inter > > >> Interface =A0 IP_Addr =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Network mask > > >> =A0 LO0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 255.0.0.0 > >> =A0 WE1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.3 =A0 =A0 255.255.255.0 > > >> $ tcpip sh rout > > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DYNAMIC > > >> Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 Gateway > > >> AN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01= 0.32.137.254 > >> AN =A0 =A010.32.137.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10.32.137= ..3 > >> AH =A0 =A010.32.137.3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32= ..137.3 > >> AH =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0127= ..0.0.1 > > >> $ tcpip sh rout/perm > > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PERMANENT > > >> Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 Gateway > > >> PN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A01= 0.32.137.254 > > >> 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. > > > Two questions here: > > > - Does your production systems depend heavily on TCP/IP connections > > (most likely yes) and on which subnet do most of the clients reside? > > Yes. There are some older LAT based DECservern that I think are on > both nets/interfaces. > > > - Is the 10.32.x.x network subdivided with routers or is it a single > > network like 10.32.0.0/16? > > Not, thgere are 5-10 10.32.x.0/8 nets. I think you mean 10.32.x.0/24. There's no such thing as 10.32.x.0/8.

jbriggs444 wrote: > On Jan 18, 4:20 am, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> > wrote: >> Not, there are 5-10 10.32.x.0/8 nets. > > I think you mean 10.32.x.0/24. There's no such thing as 10.32.x.0/8. > Right, of course. Sorry...

On Jan 17, 5:52=A0pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote: > > > $ tcpip sh route > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 DYNAMIC > > > Type =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Destination =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0Gateway > > > AN =A0 =A00.0.0.0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.1= 83.98.251 > > AN =A0 =A010.32.137.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010.32.137.1 > > AH =A0 =A010.32.137.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 10.32.137= ..1 > > AH =A0 =A0127.0.0.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 127.0.0= ..1 > > AN =A0 =A0193.183.98.0/24 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 193.183.98.2 > > AH =A0 =A0193.183.98.2 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0193.183.9= 8.2 > > If you are transitioning to the 10.* network: > > Change your default route to 10.32.137.254 > Add a permanent route =A0193.183.0.0/16 /gateway=3D193.183.98.251 > > Traffic destined for a 193 dstination that is not within the hosts subet > should then use the 193 interface and be sent to te 193.183.98.251 router= .. > > Traffic destined to the internet or to a 10.* host not part of the > 10.32.137 network will be routed via the default route and use the > 10.32.137.1 interfce to reach the .254 router. Note that the 193.183.0.0/16 either has the wrong netmask or Jan's company is squatting on address space that they do not own. According to RIPE, Electrolux only has 193.183.64.0/18 netname: SE-LUXNET descr: Electrolux Data AB

On Jan 20, 10:36=A0am, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Note that the 193.183.0.0/16 either has the wrong netmask or Jan's > company is squatting on address space that they do not own. =A0According > to RIPE, Electrolux only has 193.183.64.0/18 > > netname: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 SE-LUXNET > descr: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Electrolux Data AB It is not good practice and may not apply to Jan-Erik and his company but those addresses can be used on an internal company network without impact on Electrolux or others. Do to bad decisions when my company was built we used 150.2.0.0/16 subnets internally behind our firewall even though it was owned by a Japanese/Asian company. David Reynolds

On Jan 20, 3:48=A0pm, GraphicDave <graphicd...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 10:36=A0am, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Note that the 193.183.0.0/16 either has the wrong netmask or Jan's > > company is squatting on address space that they do not own. =A0Accordin= g > > to RIPE, Electrolux only has 193.183.64.0/18 > > > netname: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 SE-LUXNET > > descr: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Electrolux Data AB > > It is not good practice and may not apply to Jan-Erik and his company > but those addresses can be used on an internal company network without > impact on Electrolux or others. > Do to bad decisions when my company was built we used 150.2.0.0/16 > subnets internally behind our firewall even though it was owned by a > Japanese/Asian company. > > David Reynolds Yeah. My company is squatting on some pieces of 193.32 and 193.154. It works fine until it breaks -- e.g. when somebody complains that they can't get to a web site located on the real address space.

Similiar Articles:

routing to two subnets over the same interface - comp.unix.solaris ...
... routing to two subnets over the same interface - comp.unix.solaris ... multicast testing on Solaris - comp.unix.solaris Routing when using two interfaces/networks. - comp ...

WCCP on ASA & traffic between physical interfaces on ASA - comp ...
Policy based routing on a ASA - comp.dcom.sys.cisco WCCP on ASA & traffic between physical interfaces on ASA ... Routing when using two interfaces/networks. - comp.os.vms ...

WAAS w/ WCCP not working - comp.dcom.sys.cisco
I am going to try to describe our network: Two client networks, A and B ... WCCP on ASA & traffic between physical interfaces on ASA ... Routing when using ...

Packet network simulation, routing table. - comp.soft-sys.matlab ...
ping using multiple interfaces - comp.unix.solaris I have a network on which my Solaris (SunOS ... routing to two subnets over the same interface - comp.unix.solaris ... ...

Interface IP address Change. - comp.protocols.time.ntp
Thus there are two bugs waiting to be closed ... stack has had for quite some time the routing socket interface. This interface allows to read notifications about network ...

ping using multiple interfaces - comp.unix.solaris
... SunOS ver 5.8) machine has multiple network interfaces ... in advance Edward netstat -r Routing Table ... routing to two subnets over the same interface - comp.unix.solaris ... ...

add a 2nd gateway on a host - comp.unix.solaris
Also the two router needs to be using one or several Routing protocols to update each other ... 2nd gateway on a host - comp.unix.solaris... network interfaces ...

Multiple Routes + Multiple Interfaces to the same Router/Gateway ...
routing to two subnets over the same interface - comp.unix.solaris ... Zones and routing between ... X.X.X.1 as the gateway address for your local network. So (using the ...

ASA with two default-routes - comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Hi all, our PIX has two interfaces on the internet ... from where the packets ... NAT not working at all... - comp.dcom.sys.cisco ..... my network, there is static route ...

interface ge0 uses same MAC as eri0 - comp.unix.solaris
Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface ... unix.solaris routing to two subnets over ... cluster, I need to have same interface name. T5220 is using ... How to change network ...

How to change network interface name - comp.unix.solaris ...
The reason the interfaces are different are because the two machines are using different ... using e1000g1 and V440 is using ce0. How to change T5220 network > interface ...

[Q] giving priority to network interfaces? - comp.unix.solaris ...
... Is it possible to give different priorities to two network interfaces ... although both lines are ... is default route, and traffic is going on the selected interface. but ...

tracing route in solaris using tcp packets - comp.unix.solaris ...
All, We have a production issue (network ... tracing route in solaris using tcp packets - comp.unix ... ping using multiple interfaces - comp.unix.solaris If the ...

Cisco ASA: Don't NAT routes anounced via OSPF - comp.dcom.sys ...
... running a Cisco ASA5505 with Software Version 8.4(1) and one interface. I'm using it ... have one other issue: If I tell the ASA to propagate the route to the network 10.11 ...

any port in a storm is fine by me - comp.dcom.sys.cisco
But, you can connect the two with a DTE/DCE ... Using a routing protocol, that subnet (used by ppp or slip ... IEEE 802.3 interface(s) 1 Serial(sync/async) network interface ...

Configure Nat Routing Between Two Network Interfaces « Talk2Melbin
Configure Nat Routing Between Two Network Interfaces. Network Address Translation (Nat) help to route the request through the gateway. It will help the system ...

Router (computing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then, using information in its routing table or routing policy, it ... the preferred routes between any two systems on the interconnected networks. A router has interfaces ...

7/21/2012 8:20:39 AM