Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
The routes were missing from the system table and the Linux "root mode" table My hardware was ancient Compaq PII 266 with Intel eepro NIC and a Celeron 768 with Realtek NIC, so I don't think your problem is caused by your fast hardware Regards David Aubrey Wells wrote: > Sounds like we have the same issue then. Do your routes show up > correctly in the system routing table? What kind of hardware are you > using? I'm running a dell 1950 with dual dual-core 3.0 Xeons and 8 gig > of ram. No PCI cards, all onboard broadcom NICs. > > > -- > Aubrey Wells > Senior Engineer > Shelton | Johns Technology Group > 404.478.2790 > www.sheltonjohns.com > > > > On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:58 AM, David Pearce wrote: > >> I have found that VC3 is very fussy about adding routes. Changing an >> interface and deleting the node followed by recreating it with new >> settings leads to no routing table entries for me. >> I have found that the only way to get a correct table is to start from a >> clean format >> >> David >> >> Aubrey Wells wrote: >>> It is the next hop. To give you one of the scenarios: >>> >>> Added 8.17.X.253 /30 to eth0 vif 1180 >>> >>> subnet doesnt show up in vyatta's routing table (show route) but does >>> show up in the system table (route -n) and I can ping the other side >>> (8.17.X.254) both from within xorp and from the unix shell. >>> >>> So then I add a static route for 3 subnets pointing to the (directly >>> connected) route of the other side of that /30 (8.17.X.254). show >>> route from xorp says its next hop is my default route. show >>> configuration shows that I didnt screw up i did in fact do what i >>> meant to. the system routing table (route -n) says the same thing as >>> the xorp table (that i configured it to be the same as the default >>> route). So the route doesnt work, and what's worse, is if I try to >>> delete it from the config (delete protocols static 216.32.X.0/20 next- >>> hop 8.17.X.254) it tells me I cant delete a non-existant route. If I >>> try to put what it thinks the route is, it says the node doesnt >>> exist. I have to delete the offending line from the config file with >>> vi and reboot (or load config.boot now that I know that) to get it >>> back to a state where I can work with it. And this pesky line shows >>> up in the log. I dont see anything interesting in any other logs that >>> I know about: >>> >>> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA ] Got update for address no in lib feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253 >>> >>> >>> THe other scenario: >>> IP 8.17.X.113 /28 exists on eth1 vif 1192. I remove it and commit. >>> Its gone out of both the system and xorp routing tables. i read it as >>> 8.17.X.113 /29 and commit. It doesnt show up in the xorp table, but >>> it is in the system table. I get the same log message as above and my >>> system hates me for it. The route works (i can ping the other side) >>> but I can't configure any services to use it. :-( >>> >>> >>> *sigh* Any ideas? >>> >>> I searched bugzilla, and only came up with bug 1602, which appears to >>> be the exact opposite of my issue. I'm going to try to reproduce on a >>> dev box and use my subscription support to see if one of you guys can >>> log in to it and poke around. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Aubrey Wells >>> Senior Engineer >>> Shelton | Johns Technology Group >>> A Vyatta Ready Partner >>> www.sheltonjohns.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Justin Fletcher wrote: >>> >>> No problem - I know exactly how you feel some days! And I'd missed the point that it didn't make into the system route table, so the first question I'd ask is whether the next hop you're specifying is directly connected? If it isn't, try using the IP address of the directly connected next hop router. If it is, well, there's a bit more to figure out, as I've never seen that behavior. To try a rephrase on the load config command, it'll make your running configuration match the configuration in the file (usually :-) ) Justin On Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-) > > I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta doesn't > recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything > with them. So > you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will that > cause any > downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be seamless? > > Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but > this sentence > doesn't make any sense: > > "it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration > that's in > the config file, and add the new commands from the config file." > > Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-) > > >
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
Sounds like we have the same issue then. Do your routes show up
correctly in the system routing table? What kind of hardware are you
using? I'm running a dell 1950 with dual dual-core 3.0 Xeons and 8
gig of ram. No PCI cards, all onboard broadcom NICs.
--
Aubrey Wells
Senior Engineer
Shelton | Johns Technology Group
404.478.2790
www.sheltonjohns.com
On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:58 AM, David Pearce wrote:
> I have found that VC3 is very fussy about adding routes. Changing an
> interface and deleting the node followed by recreating it with new
> settings leads to no routing table entries for me.
> I have found that the only way to get a correct table is to start
> from a
> clean format
>
> David
>
> Aubrey Wells wrote:
>> It is the next hop. To give you one of the scenarios:
>>
>> Added 8.17.X.253 /30 to eth0 vif 1180
>>
>> subnet doesnt show up in vyatta's routing table (show route) but does
>> show up in the system table (route -n) and I can ping the other side
>> (8.17.X.254) both from within xorp and from the unix shell.
>>
>> So then I add a static route for 3 subnets pointing to the (directly
>> connected) route of the other side of that /30 (8.17.X.254). show
>> route from xorp says its next hop is my default route. show
>> configuration shows that I didnt screw up i did in fact do what i
>> meant to. the system routing table (route -n) says the same thing as
>> the xorp table (that i configured it to be the same as the default
>> route). So the route doesnt work, and what's worse, is if I try to
>> delete it from the config (delete protocols static 216.32.X.0/20
>> next-
>> hop 8.17.X.254) it tells me I cant delete a non-existant route. If I
>> try to put what it thinks the route is, it says the node doesnt
>> exist. I have to delete the offending line from the config file with
>> vi and reboot (or load config.boot now that I know that) to get it
>> back to a state where I can work with it. And this pesky line shows
>> up in the log. I dont see anything interesting in any other logs that
>> I know about:
>>
>>
>>> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING
>>> xorp_fea FEA
>>> ] Got update for address no in lib
>>> feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
>>>
>>
>>
>> THe other scenario:
>> IP 8.17.X.113 /28 exists on eth1 vif 1192. I remove it and commit.
>> Its gone out of both the system and xorp routing tables. i read it as
>> 8.17.X.113 /29 and commit. It doesnt show up in the xorp table, but
>> it is in the system table. I get the same log message as above and my
>> system hates me for it. The route works (i can ping the other side)
>> but I can't configure any services to use it. :-(
>>
>>
>> *sigh* Any ideas?
>>
>> I searched bugzilla, and only came up with bug 1602, which appears to
>> be the exact opposite of my issue. I'm going to try to reproduce on a
>> dev box and use my subscription support to see if one of you guys can
>> log in to it and poke around.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aubrey Wells
>> Senior Engineer
>> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
>> A Vyatta Ready Partner
>> www.sheltonjohns.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No problem - I know exactly how you feel some days!
>>>
>>> And I'd missed the point that it didn't make into the system route
>>> table, so the
>>> first question I'd ask is whether the next hop you're specifying is
>>> directly connected?
>>> If it isn't, try using the IP address of the directly connected
>>> next hop router.
>>>
>>> If it is, well, there's a bit more to figure out, as I've never seen
>>> that behavior.
>>>
>>> To try a rephrase on the load config command, it'll make your
>>> running
>>> configuration
>>> match the configuration in the file (usually :-) )
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-)
I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta
doesn't
recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything
with them. So
you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will that
cause any
downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be seamless?
Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but
this sentence
doesn't make any sense:
"it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration
that's in
the config file, and add the new commands from the config file."
Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-)
--
Aubrey Wells
Senior Engineer
Shelton | Johns Technology Group
www.sheltonjohns.com
On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization
issue.
If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
s
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
I have found that VC3 is very fussy about adding routes. Changing an
interface and deleting the node followed by recreating it with new
settings leads to no routing table entries for me.
I have found that the only way to get a correct table is to start from a
clean format
David
Aubrey Wells wrote:
> It is the next hop. To give you one of the scenarios:
>
> Added 8.17.X.253 /30 to eth0 vif 1180
>
> subnet doesnt show up in vyatta's routing table (show route) but does
> show up in the system table (route -n) and I can ping the other side
> (8.17.X.254) both from within xorp and from the unix shell.
>
> So then I add a static route for 3 subnets pointing to the (directly
> connected) route of the other side of that /30 (8.17.X.254). show
> route from xorp says its next hop is my default route. show
> configuration shows that I didnt screw up i did in fact do what i
> meant to. the system routing table (route -n) says the same thing as
> the xorp table (that i configured it to be the same as the default
> route). So the route doesnt work, and what's worse, is if I try to
> delete it from the config (delete protocols static 216.32.X.0/20 next-
> hop 8.17.X.254) it tells me I cant delete a non-existant route. If I
> try to put what it thinks the route is, it says the node doesnt
> exist. I have to delete the offending line from the config file with
> vi and reboot (or load config.boot now that I know that) to get it
> back to a state where I can work with it. And this pesky line shows
> up in the log. I dont see anything interesting in any other logs that
> I know about:
>
>
>> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING
>> xorp_fea FEA
>> ] Got update for address no in lib
>> feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
>>
>
>
> THe other scenario:
> IP 8.17.X.113 /28 exists on eth1 vif 1192. I remove it and commit.
> Its gone out of both the system and xorp routing tables. i read it as
> 8.17.X.113 /29 and commit. It doesnt show up in the xorp table, but
> it is in the system table. I get the same log message as above and my
> system hates me for it. The route works (i can ping the other side)
> but I can't configure any services to use it. :-(
>
>
> *sigh* Any ideas?
>
> I searched bugzilla, and only came up with bug 1602, which appears to
> be the exact opposite of my issue. I'm going to try to reproduce on a
> dev box and use my subscription support to see if one of you guys can
> log in to it and poke around.
>
>
> --
> Aubrey Wells
> Senior Engineer
> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> A Vyatta Ready Partner
> www.sheltonjohns.com
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
>
>
>> No problem - I know exactly how you feel some days!
>>
>> And I'd missed the point that it didn't make into the system route
>> table, so the
>> first question I'd ask is whether the next hop you're specifying is
>> directly connected?
>> If it isn't, try using the IP address of the directly connected
>> next hop router.
>>
>> If it is, well, there's a bit more to figure out, as I've never seen
>> that behavior.
>>
>> To try a rephrase on the load config command, it'll make your running
>> configuration
>> match the configuration in the file (usually :-) )
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-)
>>>
>>> I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta doesn't
>>> recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything
>>> with them. So
>>> you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will that
>>> cause any
>>> downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be seamless?
>>>
>>> Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but
>>> this sentence
>>> doesn't make any sense:
>>>
>>> "it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration
>>> that's in
>>> the config file, and add the new commands from the config file."
>>>
>>> Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aubrey Wells
>>> Senior Engineer
>>> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
>>>
>>> www.sheltonjohns.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
>>>
>>> Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization issue.
>>>
>>> If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
>>> shell or "show route system forward" from the CLI) it's really in the
>>> system RIB as the forwarding information base is updated from the
>>> RIB.
>>> However, "show route" looks at a different table, and can be somewhat
>>> out of sync.
>>>
>>> So - if you see the route from "show route system forward" it made it
>>> into the route tables correctly - you're just seeing a viewing
>>> discrepancy issue.
>>>
>>> Also, you can load the configuration using "load config.boot" in
>>> config mode; it'll remove everyth
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
Hmm. I've never seen this with interfaces, but maybe it's a VIF issue.
Try setting the global log level to debug; maybe there's more information below
warning level.
And, of course, that's what support is for - they're GOOD with puzzles
like this!!
Justin
On Nov 5, 2007 9:43 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is the next hop. To give you one of the scenarios:
>
> Added 8.17.X.253 /30 to eth0 vif 1180
>
> subnet doesnt show up in vyatta's routing table (show route) but does
> show up in the system table (route -n) and I can ping the other side
> (8.17.X.254) both from within xorp and from the unix shell.
>
> So then I add a static route for 3 subnets pointing to the (directly
> connected) route of the other side of that /30 (8.17.X.254). show
> route from xorp says its next hop is my default route. show
> configuration shows that I didnt screw up i did in fact do what i
> meant to. the system routing table (route -n) says the same thing as
> the xorp table (that i configured it to be the same as the default
> route). So the route doesnt work, and what's worse, is if I try to
> delete it from the config (delete protocols static 216.32.X.0/20 next-
> hop 8.17.X.254) it tells me I cant delete a non-existant route. If I
> try to put what it thinks the route is, it says the node doesnt
> exist. I have to delete the offending line from the config file with
> vi and reboot (or load config.boot now that I know that) to get it
> back to a state where I can work with it. And this pesky line shows
> up in the log. I dont see anything interesting in any other logs that
> I know about:
>
> > Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING
> > xorp_fea FEA
> > ] Got update for address no in lib
> > feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
>
>
> THe other scenario:
> IP 8.17.X.113 /28 exists on eth1 vif 1192. I remove it and commit.
> Its gone out of both the system and xorp routing tables. i read it as
> 8.17.X.113 /29 and commit. It doesnt show up in the xorp table, but
> it is in the system table. I get the same log message as above and my
> system hates me for it. The route works (i can ping the other side)
> but I can't configure any services to use it. :-(
>
>
> *sigh* Any ideas?
>
> I searched bugzilla, and only came up with bug 1602, which appears to
> be the exact opposite of my issue. I'm going to try to reproduce on a
> dev box and use my subscription support to see if one of you guys can
> log in to it and poke around.
>
>
> --
> Aubrey Wells
> Senior Engineer
> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> A Vyatta Ready Partner
> www.sheltonjohns.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
>
> > No problem - I know exactly how you feel some days!
> >
> > And I'd missed the point that it didn't make into the system route
> > table, so the
> > first question I'd ask is whether the next hop you're specifying is
> > directly connected?
> > If it isn't, try using the IP address of the directly connected
> > next hop router.
> >
> > If it is, well, there's a bit more to figure out, as I've never seen
> > that behavior.
> >
> > To try a rephrase on the load config command, it'll make your running
> > configuration
> > match the configuration in the file (usually :-) )
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-)
> >>
> >> I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta doesn't
> >> recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything
> >> with them. So
> >> you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will that
> >> cause any
> >> downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be seamless?
> >>
> >> Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but
> >> this sentence
> >> doesn't make any sense:
> >>
> >> "it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration
> >> that's in
> >> the config file, and add the new commands from the config file."
> >>
> >> Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Aubrey Wells
> >> Senior Engineer
> >> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> >>
>
> >> www.sheltonjohns.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
> >>
> >> Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization issue.
> >>
> >> If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
> >> shell or "show route system forward" from the CLI) it's really in the
> >> system RIB as the forwarding information base is updated from the
> >> RIB.
> >> However, "show route" looks at a different table, and can be somewhat
> >> out of sync.
> >>
> >> So - if you see the route from "show route system forward" it made it
> >> into the route tables correctly - you're just seeing a viewing
> >> discrepancy issue.
> >>
> >> Also, you can load the configuration using "load config.boot" in
> >> config mode; it'll r
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
It is the next hop. To give you one of the scenarios:
Added 8.17.X.253 /30 to eth0 vif 1180
subnet doesnt show up in vyatta's routing table (show route) but does
show up in the system table (route -n) and I can ping the other side
(8.17.X.254) both from within xorp and from the unix shell.
So then I add a static route for 3 subnets pointing to the (directly
connected) route of the other side of that /30 (8.17.X.254). show
route from xorp says its next hop is my default route. show
configuration shows that I didnt screw up i did in fact do what i
meant to. the system routing table (route -n) says the same thing as
the xorp table (that i configured it to be the same as the default
route). So the route doesnt work, and what's worse, is if I try to
delete it from the config (delete protocols static 216.32.X.0/20 next-
hop 8.17.X.254) it tells me I cant delete a non-existant route. If I
try to put what it thinks the route is, it says the node doesnt
exist. I have to delete the offending line from the config file with
vi and reboot (or load config.boot now that I know that) to get it
back to a state where I can work with it. And this pesky line shows
up in the log. I dont see anything interesting in any other logs that
I know about:
> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING
> xorp_fea FEA
> ] Got update for address no in lib
> feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
THe other scenario:
IP 8.17.X.113 /28 exists on eth1 vif 1192. I remove it and commit.
Its gone out of both the system and xorp routing tables. i read it as
8.17.X.113 /29 and commit. It doesnt show up in the xorp table, but
it is in the system table. I get the same log message as above and my
system hates me for it. The route works (i can ping the other side)
but I can't configure any services to use it. :-(
*sigh* Any ideas?
I searched bugzilla, and only came up with bug 1602, which appears to
be the exact opposite of my issue. I'm going to try to reproduce on a
dev box and use my subscription support to see if one of you guys can
log in to it and poke around.
--
Aubrey Wells
Senior Engineer
Shelton | Johns Technology Group
A Vyatta Ready Partner
www.sheltonjohns.com
On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
> No problem - I know exactly how you feel some days!
>
> And I'd missed the point that it didn't make into the system route
> table, so the
> first question I'd ask is whether the next hop you're specifying is
> directly connected?
> If it isn't, try using the IP address of the directly connected
> next hop router.
>
> If it is, well, there's a bit more to figure out, as I've never seen
> that behavior.
>
> To try a rephrase on the load config command, it'll make your running
> configuration
> match the configuration in the file (usually :-) )
>
> Justin
>
> On Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-)
>>
>> I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta doesn't
>> recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything
>> with them. So
>> you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will that
>> cause any
>> downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be seamless?
>>
>> Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but
>> this sentence
>> doesn't make any sense:
>>
>> "it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration
>> that's in
>> the config file, and add the new commands from the config file."
>>
>> Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aubrey Wells
>> Senior Engineer
>> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
>>
>> www.sheltonjohns.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
>>
>> Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization issue.
>>
>> If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
>> shell or "show route system forward" from the CLI) it's really in the
>> system RIB as the forwarding information base is updated from the
>> RIB.
>> However, "show route" looks at a different table, and can be somewhat
>> out of sync.
>>
>> So - if you see the route from "show route system forward" it made it
>> into the route tables correctly - you're just seeing a viewing
>> discrepancy issue.
>>
>> Also, you can load the configuration using "load config.boot" in
>> config mode; it'll remove everything that's not in the current
>> configuration that's in the config file, and add the new commands
>> from
>> the config file.
>>
>> Best,
>> Justin
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2007 8:08 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anyone? :-(
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aubrey Wells
>> Senior Engineer
>> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
>> 404.478.2790
>> www.sheltonjohns.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Aubrey Wells wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> I'm having this really frustrati
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
No problem - I know exactly how you feel some days!
And I'd missed the point that it didn't make into the system route table, so the
first question I'd ask is whether the next hop you're specifying is
directly connected?
If it isn't, try using the IP address of the directly connected next hop router.
If it is, well, there's a bit more to figure out, as I've never seen
that behavior.
To try a rephrase on the load config command, it'll make your running
configuration
match the configuration in the file (usually :-) )
Justin
On Nov 5, 2007 8:52 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-)
>
> I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta doesn't
> recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything with them. So
> you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will that cause any
> downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be seamless?
>
> Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but this sentence
> doesn't make any sense:
>
> "it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration that's in
> the config file, and add the new commands from the config file."
>
> Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-)
>
>
>
> --
> Aubrey Wells
> Senior Engineer
> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> 404.478.2790
> www.sheltonjohns.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
>
> Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization issue.
>
> If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
> shell or "show route system forward" from the CLI) it's really in the
> system RIB as the forwarding information base is updated from the RIB.
> However, "show route" looks at a different table, and can be somewhat
> out of sync.
>
> So - if you see the route from "show route system forward" it made it
> into the route tables correctly - you're just seeing a viewing
> discrepancy issue.
>
> Also, you can load the configuration using "load config.boot" in
> config mode; it'll remove everything that's not in the current
> configuration that's in the config file, and add the new commands from
> the config file.
>
> Best,
> Justin
>
> On Nov 5, 2007 8:08 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone? :-(
>
>
>
> --
> Aubrey Wells
> Senior Engineer
> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> 404.478.2790
> www.sheltonjohns.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Aubrey Wells wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> I'm having this really frustrating problem where occasionally I will add an
> ip/network to vyatta, or delete an ip and readd it to the same interface
> with a different prefix-length or move it to a different interface (with a
> commit in between) and vyatta will not recognize that the ip/network has
> been added.
>
> For instance, this evening, I was attempting to add 8.17.X.253 /30 to
> interface eth1 on vif 1180. If i look at the system routing table, it is
> added on the correct interface and traffic passes to the host on the other
> side. But if I do a "show route" in vyatta the subnet is not there and as
> such, if I try to point a static route at it, the route instead gets added
> to whatever my default route is. for example:
>
> set protocols static route 1.2.3.0/8 next-hop 8.17.X.254
>
> that gets added to the config file fine, but a "show route" shows it having
> a next hop of my default route. The system routing table does the same.
> Also, I cannot delete this route from the config without doing it by hand
> with VI and rebooting (says the route doesnt exist).
>
> Also, I tried to remove 8.17.X.113 /28 and readd it as 8.17.X.113 /27. I
> removed the ip, commited, and readded it. The subnet didnt show up in the
> vyatta routing table after a commit but it was in the system routing table
> (route -n). Traffic passed just fine.
>
> When I commit those changes, I see this in the messages log:
>
> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA
> ] Got update for address no in lib
> feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
>
> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA
> ] Got update for address no in lib
> feaclient tree: eth1.54/eth1.54/8.17.X.113
>
> If I save the config, and reboot the box, the configuration loads up just
> fine and all my subnets/routes are correct. This is not a solution, as this
> is my core router in a fast-growing network and I cant go around rebooting
> it every time I add a subnet.
>
> I'm running the last VC3 beta. (I havent upgraded to VC3 release because I
> didnt want to reboot the box without scheduling a window heh)
>
> This also happened in VC2.2. I'm not 100% sure about weather or not it
> happens on a PHY, but I think it did, although most of my stuff is on VIFs.
>
> Please help!
>
> Oh, and is there a way to get it to dump and reload the config from scratch
> without rebooting? These DELL's have a horrendous POST time because
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
Thanks for the response - sorry for my impatience. :-)
I dont mind the viewing discrepancy, its the fact that vyatta doesn't
recognize the existance of the routes - so I can't do anything with
them. So you're saying load config.boot should fix the problem? Will
that cause any downtime while it rereads the config, or should it be
seamless?
Also... maybe its just because its been a really long day, but this
sentence doesn't make any sense:
"it'll remove everything that's not in the current configuration
that's in the config file, and add the new commands from the config
file."
Could you possibly rephrase for me? :-)
--
Aubrey Wells
Senior Engineer
Shelton | Johns Technology Group
404.478.2790
www.sheltonjohns.com
On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:31 PM, Justin Fletcher wrote:
Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization issue.
If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
shell or "show route system forward" from the CLI) it's really in the
system RIB as the forwarding information base is updated from the RIB.
However, "show route" looks at a different table, and can be somewhat
out of sync.
So - if you see the route from "show route system forward" it made it
into the route tables correctly - you're just seeing a viewing
discrepancy issue.
Also, you can load the configuration using "load config.boot" in
config mode; it'll remove everything that's not in the current
configuration that's in the config file, and add the new commands from
the config file.
Best,
Justin
On Nov 5, 2007 8:08 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone? :-(
--
Aubrey Wells
Senior Engineer
Shelton | Johns Technology Group
404.478.2790
www.sheltonjohns.com
On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Aubrey Wells wrote:
Hi,
I'm having this really frustrating problem where occasionally I
will add an
ip/network to vyatta, or delete an ip and readd it to the same
interface
with a different prefix-length or move it to a different interface
(with a
commit in between) and vyatta will not recognize that the ip/
network has
been added.
For instance, this evening, I was attempting to add 8.17.X.253 /30 to
interface eth1 on vif 1180. If i look at the system routing table,
it is
added on the correct interface and traffic passes to the host on
the other
side. But if I do a "show route" in vyatta the subnet is not there
and as
such, if I try to point a static route at it, the route instead
gets added
to whatever my default route is. for example:
set protocols static route 1.2.3.0/8 next-hop 8.17.X.254
that gets added to the config file fine, but a "show route" shows
it having
a next hop of my default route. The system routing table does the
same.
Also, I cannot delete this route from the config without doing it
by hand
with VI and rebooting (says the route doesnt exist).
Also, I tried to remove 8.17.X.113 /28 and readd it as 8.17.X.113 /
27. I
removed the ip, commited, and readded it. The subnet didnt show up
in the
vyatta routing table after a commit but it was in the system
routing table
(route -n). Traffic passed just fine.
When I commit those changes, I see this in the messages log:
Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING
xorp_fea FEA
] Got update for address no in lib
feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING
xorp_fea FEA
] Got update for address no in lib
feaclient tree: eth1.54/eth1.54/8.17.X.113
If I save the config, and reboot the box, the configuration loads
up just
fine and all my subnets/routes are correct. This is not a
solution, as this
is my core router in a fast-growing network and I cant go around
rebooting
it every time I add a subnet.
I'm running the last VC3 beta. (I havent upgraded to VC3 release
because I
didnt want to reboot the box without scheduling a window heh)
This also happened in VC2.2. I'm not 100% sure about weather or
not it
happens on a PHY, but I think it did, although most of my stuff is
on VIFs.
Please help!
Oh, and is there a way to get it to dump and reload the config
from scratch
without rebooting? These DELL's have a horrendous POST time
because of the
RAID, DRAC, and BMC BIOSes that all have to load (plus the
overhead of
checking 8G of memory)!
--
Aubrey Wells
Senior Engineer
Shelton | Johns Technology Group
A Vyatta Ready Partner
www.sheltonjohns.com
___
Vyatta-users mailing list
Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com
http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
___
Vyatta-users mailing list
Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com
http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
___
Vyatta-users mailing list
Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com
http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-use
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
Good questions - I think you're just seeing a synchronization issue.
If you see it in the system route table ("route -n" from the Linux
shell or "show route system forward" from the CLI) it's really in the
system RIB as the forwarding information base is updated from the RIB.
However, "show route" looks at a different table, and can be somewhat
out of sync.
So - if you see the route from "show route system forward" it made it
into the route tables correctly - you're just seeing a viewing
discrepancy issue.
Also, you can load the configuration using "load config.boot" in
config mode; it'll remove everything that's not in the current
configuration that's in the config file, and add the new commands from
the config file.
Best,
Justin
On Nov 5, 2007 8:08 PM, Aubrey Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone? :-(
>
>
>
> --
> Aubrey Wells
> Senior Engineer
> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> 404.478.2790
> www.sheltonjohns.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Aubrey Wells wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> I'm having this really frustrating problem where occasionally I will add an
> ip/network to vyatta, or delete an ip and readd it to the same interface
> with a different prefix-length or move it to a different interface (with a
> commit in between) and vyatta will not recognize that the ip/network has
> been added.
>
> For instance, this evening, I was attempting to add 8.17.X.253 /30 to
> interface eth1 on vif 1180. If i look at the system routing table, it is
> added on the correct interface and traffic passes to the host on the other
> side. But if I do a "show route" in vyatta the subnet is not there and as
> such, if I try to point a static route at it, the route instead gets added
> to whatever my default route is. for example:
>
> set protocols static route 1.2.3.0/8 next-hop 8.17.X.254
>
> that gets added to the config file fine, but a "show route" shows it having
> a next hop of my default route. The system routing table does the same.
> Also, I cannot delete this route from the config without doing it by hand
> with VI and rebooting (says the route doesnt exist).
>
> Also, I tried to remove 8.17.X.113 /28 and readd it as 8.17.X.113 /27. I
> removed the ip, commited, and readded it. The subnet didnt show up in the
> vyatta routing table after a commit but it was in the system routing table
> (route -n). Traffic passed just fine.
>
> When I commit those changes, I see this in the messages log:
>
> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA
> ] Got update for address no in lib
> feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253
>
> Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA
> ] Got update for address no in lib
> feaclient tree: eth1.54/eth1.54/8.17.X.113
>
> If I save the config, and reboot the box, the configuration loads up just
> fine and all my subnets/routes are correct. This is not a solution, as this
> is my core router in a fast-growing network and I cant go around rebooting
> it every time I add a subnet.
>
> I'm running the last VC3 beta. (I havent upgraded to VC3 release because I
> didnt want to reboot the box without scheduling a window heh)
>
> This also happened in VC2.2. I'm not 100% sure about weather or not it
> happens on a PHY, but I think it did, although most of my stuff is on VIFs.
>
> Please help!
>
> Oh, and is there a way to get it to dump and reload the config from scratch
> without rebooting? These DELL's have a horrendous POST time because of the
> RAID, DRAC, and BMC BIOSes that all have to load (plus the overhead of
> checking 8G of memory)!
>
>
> --
> Aubrey Wells
> Senior Engineer
> Shelton | Johns Technology Group
> A Vyatta Ready Partner
> www.sheltonjohns.com
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Vyatta-users mailing list
> Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com
> http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
>
> ___
> Vyatta-users mailing list
> Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com
> http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
>
>
___
Vyatta-users mailing list
Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com
http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
Re: [Vyatta-users] subnet move/add/change misbehavior [grrrrr!]
Anyone? :-( -- Aubrey Wells Senior Engineer Shelton | Johns Technology Group 404.478.2790 www.sheltonjohns.com On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Aubrey Wells wrote: Hi, I'm having this really frustrating problem where occasionally I will add an ip/network to vyatta, or delete an ip and readd it to the same interface with a different prefix-length or move it to a different interface (with a commit in between) and vyatta will not recognize that the ip/network has been added. For instance, this evening, I was attempting to add 8.17.X.253 /30 to interface eth1 on vif 1180. If i look at the system routing table, it is added on the correct interface and traffic passes to the host on the other side. But if I do a "show route" in vyatta the subnet is not there and as such, if I try to point a static route at it, the route instead gets added to whatever my default route is. for example: set protocols static route 1.2.3.0/8 next-hop 8.17.X.254 that gets added to the config file fine, but a "show route" shows it having a next hop of my default route. The system routing table does the same. Also, I cannot delete this route from the config without doing it by hand with VI and rebooting (says the route doesnt exist). Also, I tried to remove 8.17.X.113 /28 and readd it as 8.17.X.113 / 27. I removed the ip, commited, and readded it. The subnet didnt show up in the vyatta routing table after a commit but it was in the system routing table (route -n). Traffic passed just fine. When I commit those changes, I see this in the messages log: Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA ] Got update for address no in lib feaclient tree: eth0.1180/eth0.1180/8.17.X.253 Nov 4 01:49:47 vyatta xorp_fea: [ 2007/11/04 01:49:47 WARNING xorp_fea FEA ] Got update for address no in lib feaclient tree: eth1.54/eth1.54/8.17.X.113 If I save the config, and reboot the box, the configuration loads up just fine and all my subnets/routes are correct. This is not a solution, as this is my core router in a fast-growing network and I cant go around rebooting it every time I add a subnet. I'm running the last VC3 beta. (I havent upgraded to VC3 release because I didnt want to reboot the box without scheduling a window heh) This also happened in VC2.2. I'm not 100% sure about weather or not it happens on a PHY, but I think it did, although most of my stuff is on VIFs. Please help! Oh, and is there a way to get it to dump and reload the config from scratch without rebooting? These DELL's have a horrendous POST time because of the RAID, DRAC, and BMC BIOSes that all have to load (plus the overhead of checking 8G of memory)! -- Aubrey Wells Senior Engineer Shelton | Johns Technology Group A Vyatta Ready Partner www.sheltonjohns.com ___ Vyatta-users mailing list Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users ___ Vyatta-users mailing list Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
