subject:"\[AFMUG\] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness"

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-30 Thread David Milholen


Very true, no flap - no gap :)



On 8/29/2016 8:40 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:


I have a network with 140 or so OSPF routers, around 1k routes without 
issues.  Its not the number of routes, nor the qty of routers, its how 
much breaks talk etc.  The network is very reliable and static for the 
most part, so OSPF don’t chatter too much at all.


Thanks,

*_Dennis Burgess_**– **Network Engineer/Consutant*

MikroTik Certified Trianer/Consultant 
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> – 
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE


Cambium ePMP Certified, Telrad Certified, Cisco CCNA

WISPA – Wireless Internet Service Providers Assoication – Director

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net 
<http://www.linktechs.net/>


RF Mapping: www.towercoverage.com <http://www.towercoverage.com/>

Office: 314-735-0270

dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Stewart
*Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:53 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Very common deployment model … typically in larger networks.

Having said that, and as someone else mentioned I believe, folks often 
feel that OSFP can’t “scale” at all and begin feeling somewhat 
“forced” into OSPF for LB/P2P and iBGP for routes as soon as they get 
10,20,30 routers in their network and perhaps a couple of hundred 
subnets.  This is simply not typical and OSPF can be much larger in 
scale before performance is impacted significantly


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jesse DuPont
*Sent:* August 26, 2016 12:04 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and 
possibly management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes 
(customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all 
other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and 
provides redundancy.


*_Jesse DuPont_*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
<mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>

Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed
in networks

On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only
using OSPF for the loopbacks works.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> <mailto:br...@pooh.com>
    *To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of
many reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic
pool, server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to
distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF
problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding
the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my
network since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32
(from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I
canï¿½t ping them from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½
[Ross Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I
am not getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie
router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc
ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the o

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-29 Thread Dennis Burgess

I have a network with 140 or so OSPF routers, around 1k routes without issues.  
Its not the number of routes, nor the qty of routers, its how much breaks talk 
etc.  The network is very reliable and static for the most part, so OSPF don’t 
chatter too much at all.


Thanks,

Dennis Burgess – Network Engineer/Consutant
MikroTik Certified 
Trianer/Consultant<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>
 – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
Cambium ePMP Certified, Telrad Certified, Cisco CCNA
WISPA – Wireless Internet Service Providers Assoication – Director

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/>
RF Mapping: www.towercoverage.com<http://www.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270
dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:53 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Very common deployment model … typically in larger networks.

Having said that, and as someone else mentioned I believe, folks often feel 
that OSFP can’t “scale” at all and begin feeling somewhat “forced” into OSPF 
for LB/P2P and iBGP for routes as soon as they get 10,20,30 routers in their 
network and perhaps a couple of hundred subnets.  This is simply not typical 
and OSPF can be much larger in scale before performance is impacted 
significantly

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: August 26, 2016 12:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy.
Jesse DuPont
Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net<mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
Celerity Networks LLC
Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
[cid:image003.png@01D201D0.FC29AA20]
On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com><mailto:br...@pooh.com>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands.
On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools.
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:
ï¿½
[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]
ï¿½
A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.
A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response.
ï¿½
Checking the routing table on the Bernie ro

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-27 Thread Ken Hohhof

And if you get that big, it’s not clear everything needs to be in one area.

From: Paul Stewart 
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 10:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Very common deployment model … typically in larger networks.

Having said that, and as someone else mentioned I believe, folks often feel 
that OSFP can’t “scale” at all and begin feeling somewhat “forced” into OSPF 
for LB/P2P and iBGP for routes as soon as they get 10,20,30 routers in their 
network and perhaps a couple of hundred subnets.  This is simply not typical 
and OSPF can be much larger in scale before performance is impacted 
significantly 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: August 26, 2016 12:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy.

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

  He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks

  On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF 
for the loopbacks works.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From: "Bruce Robertson" mailto:br...@pooh.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons 
why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, 
anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback 
addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm 
misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

  Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I 
started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

  Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 
pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:

  ï¿½

  [office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

  ï¿½

  A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting 
any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host 
Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.

  A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie 
router with no type of response.

  ï¿½

  Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route 
pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.

  --

  Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

  ï¿½

  --

  Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the 
service starts working again.

  ï¿½

  --

  ï¿½

  Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the 
routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting 
blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie 
router.

  ï¿½

  This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is 
no route to it:

  C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

  ï¿½

  Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

  Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

  Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

  ï¿½

  Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

  ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

  ï¿½

  C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

  ï¿½

  Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

  over a maximum of 30 hops:

  ï¿½

  ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

  ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ 
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host 
unreachable.

  ï¿½

  Trace complete.

  ï¿½

  This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and 
there is no route to it.

  C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

  ï¿½

  Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

  Request timed out.

  Request time

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-27 Thread Paul Stewart

Very common deployment model … typically in larger networks.

 

Having said that, and as someone else mentioned I believe, folks often feel 
that OSFP can’t “scale” at all and begin feeling somewhat “forced” into OSPF 
for LB/P2P and iBGP for routes as soon as they get 10,20,30 routers in their 
network and perhaps a couple of hundred subnets.  This is simply not typical 
and OSPF can be much larger in scale before performance is impacted 
significantly 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: August 26, 2016 12:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy.

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net <mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband


On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks

 

 

On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works.



-
Mike Hammett
 <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>  
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>  
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> 
 <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>  
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> 
 <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>  
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 





  _  


From: "Bruce Robertson"  <mailto:br...@pooh.com> <br...@pooh.com>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to 
the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service 
starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. 
I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com 
[y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it.

C:\Users

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-26 Thread Bruce Robertson

Never!  I can't think of a single need for such a thing.  No reason you 
can't use private address space.


On 08/26/2016 04:58 AM, David Milholen wrote:


Are these two reflectors edge facing ?



On 8/25/2016 11:54 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:

Route reflectors.

On 08/25/2016 07:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

Interesting proposition

How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool,
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to
distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF
problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding
the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network
since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping
them from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½
[Ross Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I
am not getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie
router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½
just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at
the Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a
valid route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in
the OSPF LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of
x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32
in the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the
x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I should be
getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used
and there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination
host unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being
used and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the
traffic ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain
for both the source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither
increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out of
the routing flow and into the firewall..

ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-26 Thread David Milholen


Are these two reflectors edge facing ?



On 8/25/2016 11:54 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:

Route reflectors.

On 08/25/2016 07:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

Interesting proposition

How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool,
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to
distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF
problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding
the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network
since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping
them from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am
not getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router
ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just
blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at
the Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the
OSPF LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of
x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32
in the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32
IP is still getting blackholed.. I should be getting a
Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used
and there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination
host unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being
used and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the
traffic ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain
for both the source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither
increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out of
the routing flow and into the firewall..

ï¿½

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?



!DSPAM:2,57bfa9b9213521526810955! 




--

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-26 Thread Mike Hammett

Ah, okay. access via iBGP, infrastructure, management, etc. via OSPF. 

Got it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:03:58 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP. 
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy. 




Jesse DuPont 

Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
Celerity Networks LLC 
Celerity Broadband LLC 
Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc 
Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband 

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote: 



He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks 



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands. 


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: 




Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools. 
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office: 
ï¿½ 
[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer] 
ï¿½ 
A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router. 
A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response. 
ï¿½ 
Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to 
the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s. 
-- 
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all. 
ï¿½ 
-- 
Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service 
starts working again. 
ï¿½ 
-- 
ï¿½ 
Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. 
I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router. 
ï¿½ 
This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it: 
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206 
ï¿½ 
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data: 
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable. 
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable. 
ï¿½ 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206: 
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss), 
ï¿½ 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206 
ï¿½ 
Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206] 
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
ï¿½ 
ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z 
ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com 
[y.y.y.1] 
ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host unreachable. 
ï¿½ 
Trace complete. 
ï¿½ 
This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it. 
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208 
ï¿½ 
Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data: 
Request timed out. 
Request timed out. 
ï¿½ 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.208: 
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss), 
ï¿½ 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208 
ï¿½ 
Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208] 
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
ï¿½ 
ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z 
ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 
Request timed out. 
ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C 
ï¿½ 
-- 
ï¿½ 
Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I even 
put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination of 
x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out 
of the routing flow and into the firewall..

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Bruce Robertson

Yes, sorry.  You have to include the /32 loopbacks and the /30 (or 
whatever) PTP links between routers.  Or if you have a bunch of routers 
connected by one broadcast domain, you can use OSPF on that.


On 08/25/2016 07:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:


He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in 
networks




On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using 
OSPF for the loopbacks works.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many 
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, 
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute 
router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go 
away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my 
point still stands.


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network
since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them
from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not
getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no
ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes
after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the
Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF
LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32
and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in
the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is
still getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host
unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and
there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host
unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used
and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the
traffic ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain f

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Bruce Robertson


Route reflectors.

On 08/25/2016 07:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

Interesting proposition

How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool,
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to
distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF
problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the
problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network
since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping
them from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am
not getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router
ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just
blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the
Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF
LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of
x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in
the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP
is still getting blackholed.. I should be getting a
Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used
and there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination
host unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being
used and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the
traffic ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain for
both the source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither
increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out of the
routing flow and into the firewall..

ï¿½

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?



!DSPAM:2,57bfa9b9213521526810955!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Jesse DuPont


  
  
Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and
possibly management subnets for radios) and "access" network
prefixes (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all
other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh
and provides redundancy.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen
  wrote:


  
  He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses
listed in networks
  
  
  
  On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett
wrote:
  
  

I've heard this concept a few times now.
  I'm not sure how only using OSPF for the loopbacks works.
  
  

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent
  Computing Solutions

Midwest
  Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

  
  

  
  
  From: "Bruce
Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of
many reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer,
dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF
*only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your
weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm
misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert
  Haas wrote:


  
  
Alright, this problem has raised it
  head again on my network since I started to renumber
  some PPPoE pools.
Customer gets a new IP address via
  PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer
  canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:
ï¿½
[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½
  [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ [Hayti
  Router] ï¿½ [customer]
ï¿½
A traceroute from my office dies @
  the Bernie router but I am not getting any type of
  ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host
  Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes
  after my office router.
A traceroute from the Customer to
  the office again dies at the Bernie router with no
  type of response.
ï¿½
Checking the routing table on the
  Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to the
  Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.
--
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32
  and has no issue at all.
ï¿½
--
Force the original customer to a
  new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts
  working again.
ï¿½
--
ï¿½
Now ï¿½ even though there is no
  valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table ï¿½
  traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still
  getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination
  host unreachable from the Bernie router.
ï¿½
This is correct the correct
  response .206 is not being used and there is no route
  to it:
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206
ï¿½
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of
  data:
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination
  host unreachable.
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination
  host unreachable.
ï¿½
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2,
  Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
ï¿½
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert
  74.91.65.206
ï¿½
Tracing

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread David Milholen

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in 
networks




On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using 
OSPF for the loopbacks works.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many 
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server 
subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router 
loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ 
My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still 
stands.


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since
I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them
from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not
getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no
ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes
after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the
Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF
LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32
and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the
routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still
getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host
unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and
there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host
unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used
and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic
ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the
source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all.
So the traffic is not even making out of the routing flow and into
the firewall..

ï¿½

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?

!DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562! 






--

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Mike Hammett

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands. 


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: 




Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools. 
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office: 
ï¿½ 
[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer] 
ï¿½ 
A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router. 
A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response. 
ï¿½ 
Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to 
the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s. 
-- 
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all. 
ï¿½ 
-- 
Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service 
starts working again. 
ï¿½ 
-- 
ï¿½ 
Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. 
I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router. 
ï¿½ 
This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it: 
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206 
ï¿½ 
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data: 
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable. 
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable. 
ï¿½ 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206: 
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss), 
ï¿½ 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206 
ï¿½ 
Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206] 
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
ï¿½ 
ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z 
ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com 
[y.y.y.1] 
ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host unreachable. 
ï¿½ 
Trace complete. 
ï¿½ 
This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it. 
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208 
ï¿½ 
Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data: 
Request timed out. 
Request timed out. 
ï¿½ 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.208: 
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss), 
ï¿½ 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208 
ï¿½ 
Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208] 
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
ï¿½ 
ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z 
ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 
Request timed out. 
ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C 
ï¿½ 
-- 
ï¿½ 
Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I even 
put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination of 
x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out 
of the routing flow and into the firewall.. 
ï¿½ 
Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next? 
!DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

Interesting proposition 

How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
> you
> use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything}
> routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All
> your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding
> the problem, but my point still stands.

> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

>> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started 
>> to
>> renumber some PPPoE pools.

>> Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 
>> pool).
>> Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:

>> ï¿½

>> [office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
>> [Hayti
>> Router] ï¿½ [customer]

>> ï¿½

>> A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any
>> type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
>> unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.

>> A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router
>> with no type of response.

>> ï¿½

>> Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing 
>> to
>> the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.

>> --

>> Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

>> ï¿½

>> --

>> Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the 
>> service
>> starts working again.

>> ï¿½

>> --

>> ï¿½

>> Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
>> table
>> ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I
>> should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

>> ï¿½

>> This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no
>> route to it:

>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

>> ï¿½

>> Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

>> ï¿½

>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

>> ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

>> ï¿½

>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

>> ï¿½

>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

>> over a maximum of 30 hops:

>> ï¿½

>> ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

>> ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com
>> [y.y.y.1]

>> ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host 
>> unreachable.

>> ï¿½

>> Trace complete.

>> ï¿½

>> This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there 
>> is no
>> route to it.

>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

>> ï¿½

>> Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

>> Request timed out.

>> Request timed out.

>> ï¿½

>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

>> ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

>> ï¿½

>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

>> ï¿½

>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

>> over a maximum of 30 hops:

>> ï¿½

>> ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

>> ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
>> Request timed out.

>> ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

>> ï¿½

>> --

>> ï¿½

>> Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I even
>> put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination 
>> of
>> x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out
>> of the routing flow and into the firewall..

>> ï¿½

>> Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?
>> !DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread jesse . dupont



Regardless of the culprit, the cause of this will be a misconfiguration of some 
kind and likely not even with OSPF. OSPF is not weird, nor does it behave 
badly; it merely reacts to conditions based on a predetermined set of 
algorithms which are very well documented and implemented, especially for IPv4. 
OSPF builds a FIB and based on that FIB, it modifies the route table. Both of 
those are correct in this case.


All that said, I fully embrace the model you laid it and have been using it for 
some time. It makes perfect sense to me to use a non-link-state protocol to 
distribute prefixes that are not based on the state of a link.


Now, if we can just get Mikrotik to work out the next-hop recursive resolution 
issue so we can use BGP to distribute v6 prefixes...


Get Outlook for Android






On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:28 PM -0600, "Bruce Robertson"  wrote:











  

  
  
I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool,
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute
router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go
away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my
point still stands.



On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas
  wrote:



  
  
  
  


Alright, this problem has raised it head
  again on my network since I started to renumber some PPPoE
  pools.


Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE
  x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and
  I canï¿½t ping them from my office:


ï¿½


[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity
  Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]


ï¿½


A traceroute from my office dies @ the
  Bernie router but I am not getting any type of ICMP response
  from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
  unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.


A traceroute from the Customer to the
  office again dies at the Bernie router with no type of
  response.


ï¿½


Checking the routing table on the Bernie
  router shows a valid route pointing to the Braggcity router.
  It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.


--


Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has
  no issue at all.


ï¿½


--


Force the original customer to a new ip
  address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.


ï¿½


--


ï¿½


Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route
  to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the
  x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I should be
  getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.


ï¿½


This is correct the correct response .206
  is not being used and there is no route to it:


C:\Users
etadmin>ping x.x.x.206


ï¿½


Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:


Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.


Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.


ï¿½


Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:


ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost =
  0 (0% loss),


ï¿½


C:\Users
etadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206


ï¿½


Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]


over a maximum of 30 hops:


ï¿½


ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z


ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]


ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports:
  Destination host unreachable.


ï¿½


Trace complete.


ï¿½


This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though
  it is not being used and there is no route to it.


C:\Users
etadmin>ping x.x.x.208


ï¿½


Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:


Request timed out.


Request timed out.


ï¿½


Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:


ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost =
  2 (100% loss),


ï¿½


C:\Users
etadmin>tracert x.x.x.208


ï¿½


Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]


over a maximum of 30 hops:


ï¿½


ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z


ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 
Request
  timed out.


ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C


ï¿½


--


ï¿½


Iï¿½ve verified there is no

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Bruce Robertson

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons 
why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, 
anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback 
addresses.  All your weird OSPF problems will go away.  My apologies if 
I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:


Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I 
started to renumber some PPPoE pools.


Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from 
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my 
office:


[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]


A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not 
getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP 
Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my 
office router.


A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie 
router with no type of response.


Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route 
pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.


--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and 
the service starts working again.


--

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the 
routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still 
getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host 
unreachable from the Bernie router.


This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there 
is no route to it:


C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

Trace complete.

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and 
there is no route to it.


C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 *** Request timed out.

  3 ** ^C

--

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I 
even put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and 
destination of x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic 
is not even making out of the routing flow and into the firewall..


Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?

!DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Ken Hohhof

Probably not relevant to your problem, but where we blackhole route a block for 
a tower PPPoE pool, we also put in an ospf-out route filter to discard /32 
prefix lengths, to avoid the individual /32 routes going in every routing table 
around our network.  Now if you had mobile CPE with static IP assignments that 
you wanted to follow the CPE around your network, that would be different.  But 
you could still do that with a non-pool address.

From: Robert Haas 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

No, I double checked for any more specific routes that encompass that range. I 
do have my /20 to a null route to keep from ping-pong’ing at edge routers, but 
I disabled it temporarily with no change.

No summary routes – the /32’s end up in the routing table as the sessions 
terminate.

Routing at other sites was correct – I could ping the customer and traceroute 
to them from the Braggcity router. Directly on the Bernie router it just times 
out and goes no where.

No MPLS

I added a static route – one to .208 and a second to .206 (to compare). The 
correct result would be a ping-pong between Bernie and Braggcity.

I attached the screen shot, the .208 just times out while the .206 ping-pongs 
like it should..

To expand on that – I then added .208 onto the loopback at Hayti. The screen 
shot shows the Bernie router having the route in the routing table but still 
the traffic is blackholed..

I’m scratching my head.. 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Is it possible another router somewhere is announcing x.x.x.208/28 (or /29 or 
/30)? You mentioned there is no x.x.x.208/32 router in the route table, but 
what about other prefix lengths?

Are you summarizing your PPPoE prefixes into OSPF by putting them into another 
area and using area-ranges or do all the /32s just end up in all your routers' 
tables as PPPoE sessions come up?

Did you look at the route tables at Braggcity and Ross to ensure they show the 
correct outgoing iface for that /32 to reach the Hayti router?

Are you using MPLS at all?

If you add a static route for x.x.x.208/32 to Bernie, Braggcity and Ross, does 
that make any difference?

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

  Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started 
to renumber some PPPoE pools.

  Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 
pool). Customer can’t surf and I can’t ping them from my office:

  [office] – [Bernie Router] – [Braggcity Router] – [Ross Router] – [Hayti 
Router] – [customer]

  A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc – just blackholes after my office router.

  A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response.

  Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing 
to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA’s.

  --

  Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

  --

  Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the 
service starts working again.

  --

  Now – even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
table – traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I 
should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

  This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it:

  C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

  Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

  Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

  Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

  Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

  Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

  C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

  Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

  over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

  Trace complete.

  This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it.

  C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

  Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

  Request timed out.

  Request timed out.

  Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

  Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

  C:\Users\netadmin>trace

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Robert Haas

Doh – so much for masking the ip’s..

 

*face palm*

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

No, I double checked for any more specific routes that encompass that range. I 
do have my /20 to a null route to keep from ping-pong’ing at edge routers, but 
I disabled it temporarily with no change.

 

No summary routes – the /32’s end up in the routing table as the sessions 
terminate.

 

Routing at other sites was correct – I could ping the customer and traceroute 
to them from the Braggcity router. Directly on the Bernie router it just times 
out and goes no where.

 

No MPLS

 

I added a static route – one to .208 and a second to .206 (to compare). The 
correct result would be a ping-pong between Bernie and Braggcity.

I attached the screen shot, the .208 just times out while the .206 ping-pongs 
like it should..

 

To expand on that – I then added .208 onto the loopback at Hayti. The screen 
shot shows the Bernie router having the route in the routing table but still 
the traffic is blackholed..

 

I’m scratching my head.. 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

Is it possible another router somewhere is announcing x.x.x.208/28 (or /29 or 
/30)? You mentioned there is no x.x.x.208/32 router in the route table, but 
what about other prefix lengths?

Are you summarizing your PPPoE prefixes into OSPF by putting them into another 
area and using area-ranges or do all the /32s just end up in all your routers' 
tables as PPPoE sessions come up?

Did you look at the route tables at Braggcity and Ross to ensure they show the 
correct outgoing iface for that /32 to reach the Hayti router?

Are you using MPLS at all?

If you add a static route for x.x.x.208/32 to Bernie, Braggcity and Ross, does 
that make any difference?

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email:  <mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband


On 8/25/16 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer can’t surf and I can’t ping them from my office:

 

[office] – [Bernie Router] – [Braggcity Router] – [Ross Router] – [Hayti 
Router] – [customer]

 

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc – just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response.

 

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to 
the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA’s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

 

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service 
starts working again.

 

--

 

Now – even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table 
– traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I 
should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

 

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

 

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

 

Trace complete.

 

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

 

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 *** Request timed out.

  3 ** ^C

 

--

 

I’ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic – I even put 
an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and d

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Jesse DuPont


  
  
Is it possible another router somewhere is announcing x.x.x.208/28
(or /29 or /30)? You mentioned there is no x.x.x.208/32 router in
the route table, but what about other prefix lengths?

Are you summarizing your PPPoE prefixes into OSPF by putting them
into another area and using area-ranges or do all the /32s just end
up in all your routers' tables as PPPoE sessions come up?

Did you look at the route tables at Braggcity and Ross to ensure
they show the correct outgoing iface for that /32 to reach the Hayti
router?

Are you using MPLS at all?

If you add a static route for x.x.x.208/32 to Bernie, Braggcity and
Ross, does that make any difference?


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 8/25/16 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:


  
  
  
  
Alright, this problem has raised it head
  again on my network since I started to renumber some PPPoE
  pools.
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE
  x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer can’t surf and
  I can’t ping them from my office:
 
[office] – [Bernie Router] – [Braggcity
  Router] – [Ross Router] – [Hayti Router] – [customer]
 
A traceroute from my office dies @ the
  Bernie router but I am not getting any type of ICMP response
  from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
  unreachable etc – just blackholes after my office router.
A traceroute from the Customer to the
  office again dies at the Bernie router with no type of
  response.
 
Checking the routing table on the Bernie
  router shows a valid route pointing to the Braggcity router.
  It is also in the OSPF LSA’s.
--
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has
  no issue at all.
 
--
Force the original customer to a new ip
  address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.
 
--
 
Now – even though there is no valid route
  to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table – traffic destined to the
  x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I should be
  getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.
 
This is correct the correct response .206
  is not being used and there is no route to it:
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206
 
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.
 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:
    Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost =
  0 (0% loss),
 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206
 
Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z
  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 
  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]
  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports:
  Destination host unreachable.
 
Trace complete.
 
This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though
  it is not being used and there is no route to it.
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208
 
Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:
    Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost =
  2 (100% loss),
 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208
 
Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z
  2 *    *    * Request
  timed out.
  3 *    * ^C
 
--
 
I’ve verified there is no firewall that
  would affect the traffic – I even put an accept rule in the
  forward chain for both the source and destination of x.x.x.208
  and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even
  making out of the routing flow and into the firewall..
 
Any pointers are where to start
  troubleshooting next?

[AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Robert Haas

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started
to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27
pool). Customer can't surf and I can't ping them from my office:

 

[office] - [Bernie Router] - [Braggcity Router] - [Ross Router] - [Hayti
Router] - [customer]

 

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting
any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host
Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc - just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router
with no type of response.

 

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing
to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA's.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

 

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the
service starts working again.

 

--

 

Now - even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing
table - traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting
blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the
Bernie router.

 

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no
route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

 

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

 

Trace complete.

 

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there
is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

 

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 *** Request timed out.

  3 ** ^C

 

--

 

I've verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic - I even
put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination
of x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making
out of the routing flow and into the firewall..

 

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

19 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information