Ketan wrote: > Sorry for making this confusing here is lil more description
Thanks; this helps. > Code: > # traceroute 10.21.88.28 > traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 10.21.88.28 @ > e1000g2363000:1 > traceroute to 10.21.88.28 (10.21.88.28), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 hazels0ap1.emrsn.com (10.21.88.28) 0.270 ms 0.100 ms 0.094 ms > usmtnz-sinfsi04# traceroute 10.21.88.41 > traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 10.21.88.28 @ > e1000g2363000:1 > traceroute to 10.21.88.41 (10.21.88.41), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 robins0ap1.emrsn.com (10.21.88.41) 0.278 ms 0.103 ms 0.094 ms i want > e1000g2363000:1 for 10.21.88.28 & e1000g2363000:2 for 10.21.88.41 Those logical interfaces represent just two IP addresses configured on a single interface in the same subnet. For the purposes of traceroute, they're actually formally equivalent. There's no difference in the way the system operates when it says that it's "using" one interface versus another. There's nothing wrong here that I can see. Packets going "out" :1 are the same as those going out :2. Is it source address selection you're worried about? If so, then your application should pick the address it wants, if it has some sort of preference, by using bind(). Or, if the application cannot be convinced to choose one, then you could use the "deprecated" flag to exclude a source address you don't want to use. (It'd be nice if "preferred" worked here, but that's apparently only for IPv6. *sigh*) > So is there a way to get this .. as my application team has hardcoded the > e1000g2363000:1 interface for 10.21.88.28 and e1000g2363000:2 10.21.88.41. > > It works if i disable the IPMP group. > > Let me know if you want more details on this.[color="#738fbf"] I'm afraid I still don't see any sort of problem documented here. Traceroute itself can't possibly be the actual application in use. It's really not that useful for doing real work. There must be some other application involved. So what is that application? And what actual problems are you seeing? Do you have network traces showing a problem? Or error messages of some sort? If this is just a complaint about the diagnostic output from traceroute, then it sounds like a very low priority nit, and possibly not even that. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
