Hi Jakob,
Thanks for the idea. Unfortunately, I forgot to mention that I've already
tried this. I already used the route command to add a persistent route (ROUTE
ADD 192.168.0.0 MASK 255.255.0.0 192.168.1.254 METRIC 1 -p) and it just seems
to ignore it. It shows it in the ROUTE PRINT at the bottom but the dynamic
routes keep appearing and they seem to take precedence.
Persistent Routes:
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric
192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.1.254 1
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jakob Peterhänsel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [IM-Talk] Problem with poisoned routes in Windows XP
Hi Larry,
Welcome to the list!
I used to run a IM installation on a XP box, and we ended up adding =20 static
routes to the networks known, since Windows and dynamic routing =20=
is, as you found out, not that great.
I don't have a XP box here, but you use the ROUTE command to add a =20 static
route. Play around with it.
There is a parameter to make the route static, even over reboots, so =20 keep
that in mind when it's working.
Best,
Jakob Peterh=E4nsel
"Be a part of the Love Generation - carry a smile, not a gun."
- JP, May 2006
Email: [email protected]
AIM: Marook
Phone: +45 30787715
On 23/06/2009, at 22.47, Fountain, Larry wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm new to this list. For me, Intermapper is running on a Windows XP
> SP3 desktop PC. Recently I've been experiencing a maddening issue =20
> where many times a day Intermapper will report devices on my WAN as
> being =20=
> down
> when I know they're actually not. Basically, Intermapper just can't
> ping them. The weird thing is that at one moment in time it might
> report 192.168.3.254 (the router/gateway for that network segment) as
> being down while it reports 192.168.3.250 (another monitored device on
> that segment) as being up. Clearly this is impossible since traffic
> can't get to 250 except through 254. The problem is simply that
> 192.168.3.250 is pingable while 192.168.3.254 is not. What really =20
> threw me for a while was that from elsewhere on the network I could
> ping =20 both devices just fine. This scenario is not limited to
> these two =20 addresses and it's not limited to this order. In other
> words, the reverse could just as easily be true (254 is pingable while
> 250 isn't). What I've since learned from a ROUTE PRINT command on the
> Intermapper PC while =20=
> the
> devices are unpingable from the Intermapper PC is that each device =20
> that is unpingable has an associated bad route in the Intermapper PC's
> routing table. So no wonder it's unreachable if the route is =20
> incorrect and it's sending packets to the wrong gateway.
>
> I've discovered that there are two ways of temporarily "fixing" the
> problem. One is to wait 5-15 minutes and eventually the bad route
> disappears and things are fine again. The second is to go to a DOS
> prompt and execute a ROUTE DELETE 192.168.3.254 (or whatever the IP
> =20=
> is)
> and instantly Intermapper is happy again. The problem is that before
> long the bad route (or different ones) will reappear. This causes
> Intermapper to show devices as bouncing all day long when they're =20
> really not.
>
> In short, the problem is that somehow my routing tables are being
> poisoned on the Intermapper PC. I suspect that it's not just on =20
> this PC but that PC's on this entire subnet are being affected. It's
> just =20 that we're not noticing it elsewhere as much. Something on
> our network is poisoning the routes but I have no clue where it's
> coming from. It =20=
> can
> happen 10 times or more per day and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme
> or reason for when it occurs.
>
> Does anybody know how Windows XP gets it's routing table populated?
> I've got WireShark running on that PC and could easily sniff for the
> appropriate packets if I only knew what I was looking for. Any ideas
> would be much appreciated. I've already run this past Dartware's tech
> support and they suggested posting this issue here. The good news at
> least is that this is clearly not an Intermapper problem. More than
> likely it's something on our network that needs to be resolved anyway
> and Intermapper is just extra sensitive to the routes being poisoned.
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> Larry
> ____________________________________________________________________
> List archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
> To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected]
>
____________________________________________________________________
List archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected]
