You can see they all  have an equal cost [110/66] of 66. Looking at
your diagram I see

R2-R4-Cat1-Cat2-Cat2 loopback
R2-R5-Cat3-Cat2-Cat2 loopback
R2-R6-Cat4-Cat2-Cat2 loopback

Extra fiddling is one of the best ways to learn this stuff.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Alef <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Marc.
>
> This was the problem:
> R6#sh class-map type inspect
>  Class Map type inspect match-any corporate-to-private-class (id 1)
>   Match protocol telnet
>   Match protocol ssh
>   Match protocol ftp
>
> Once i added icmp all was well. I didn't actually expect the route to go over 
> that for some reason, nor do i understand why it had r6 in it's path with 
> equal distance, as there is at least one more l3 switch in between compared 
> to R5. Same for R4. Does it not see the "switches" as a hop or something ?
> O       33.33.33.33 [110/66] via 100.100.100.6, 00:13:27, Serial1/1.256
>                    [110/66] via 100.100.100.5, 00:13:27, Serial1/1.256
>                    [110/66] via 100.100.24.4, 00:07:08, Serial1/0.24
>
> This is what i get for fiddling with labs designed for a different purpose 
> and then trying to add more functionality (or get more out of it) ;-)
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:36 PM, marc abel wrote:
>
>> Layer 2 loops are caused because switches by default flood traffic out
>> all ports, so any time you connect switches in a circular path a loop
>> would form if not for spanning-tree.
>>
>> In layer 3 this is not the case. Since you have to specifically tell
>> traffic where to route, making a circle does not make a loop. Routes
>> make loops by referring back to a host that thinks its path is back to
>> itself. So adding layer 3 interfaces is not the cause of the loops,
>> incorrect routes are.
>>
>> Take this example
>>
>> R1.
>> int g0/0
>> ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
>> no shut
>> !
>> ip route  6.6.6.6 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.2
>>
>> R2.
>> int g0/0
>> ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
>> no shut
>> !
>> ip route  6.6.6.6 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.1
>>
>>
>> Now try to traceroute to 6.6.6.6. R1 will send it to R2, R2 will send
>> it to R1, R1 will send to R2, repeat until the TTL expires. This is a
>> layer 3 loop. You will generally notice layer 3 loops by traffic not
>> reaching its destination(and proved by traceroute), or by routes being
>> repeatedly installed and removed from the routing table (debug ip
>> routing).
>>
>> Layer 2 loops will generally either keep looping the traffic around so
>> much that you lose access to the device and the whole damn network
>> crashes, or if you are lucky you might not have it so bad and you will
>> see a message in the logs that says something like host x.x.x.x is
>> flapping between interface.....
>>
>> -Marc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Alef <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> No no redistribution. I tried to keep it as simple as possible.
>>> Ok let me try my hand at some ascii art.
>>>
>>> But before i do that, is there some inherent stupid thing about putting 
>>> vlan interfaces in all the vlans on all the switches ( i have dot1q trunks 
>>> in x between all 4 switches). I can imagine in my network it would create a 
>>> loop. Just a hunch if i follow the paths. Would i not automatically 
>>> introduce L3 loops by doing that. I think ipexpert topology is setup 
>>> similar ?
>>>
>>> ok scratch that, i uploaded a small jpg
>>> http://tinypic.com/r/fkqfqr/7
>>>
>>> All switches loopbacks are reachable by at least 3 paths (2 trough the FR 
>>> cloud, and 1 other)
>>>
>>> R2#
>>> O       11.11.11.11 [110/66] via 100.100.100.6, 01:01:51, Serial1/1.256
>>>                    [110/66] via 100.100.100.5, 01:01:51, Serial1/1.256
>>>                    [110/66] via 100.100.24.4, 00:00:43, Serial1/0.24
>>>     44.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>>> O       44.44.44.44 [110/66] via 100.100.100.6, 01:01:51, Serial1/1.256
>>>                    [110/66] via 100.100.100.5, 01:01:51, Serial1/1.256
>>>                    [110/66] via 100.100.24.4, 00:00:43, Serial1/0.24
>>>
>>> On a probably unrelated side note, anyone ever got :
>>> %OSPF-4-ERRRCV: Received invalid packet: Bad Checksum from 100.100.14.1, 
>>> Vlan14
>>>
>>> Cisco website says change the port or cable, which i did, and cable, well 
>>> considering it's a dynamips sim i did  that as best as i could :-)
>>>
>>> Can't get the message to go away though.
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Di Bias, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think you have any kind of loop? What are the symptoms? Are 
>>>> you redistributing anywhere?
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected] 
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alef
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:27 AM
>>>> To: [email protected] IE
>>>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] loop in network?
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> So i have this network, and i am thinking i have a loop. I'm just not sure 
>>>> where or how.
>>>> And i think it started happening after i created vlan interfaces in all 
>>>> vlans on all switches. So Cat1 is having vlan14,vlan567 and vlan69 
>>>> interfaces and all the other switches in similar.
>>>>
>>>> They are NM16ESW cards, but IEEE stp is running so a Layer2 loop should be 
>>>> out of the question. Could i still have a routing loop?
>>>> I am running OSPF in one giant area 0.
>>>>
>>>> How would i go about solving it? I can't use split horizon as OSPF doesn't 
>>>> use that. Should i artificially set routes such that they get a lower 
>>>> metric and manipulate things like that?
>>>>
>>>> I attached a small picture to clarify (this is taken from the Security lab 
>>>> Day4 VoD btw).
>>>> Mind you, it might be something different entirely although i don't think 
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>> But it's probably going to be something very stupid. And yes, i probably 
>>>> don't understand switching very well yet :-)
>>>>
>>>> Alef
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UHS Confidentiality Notice:  This e-mail message, including any 
>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may 
>>>> contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, 
>>>> use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited.  If 
>>>> this was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail 
>>>> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please 
>>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Reply via email to