route problems with 6509-e

b.swank · ‎12-31-2007

we are installing a 6509-e,sup720, upgrading from a 6509 sup2, moved every over to the new 6509-e but when we break the fiber like bewteen the two and change the route statements for the new one we are unable to connect to the internet, but as long as we maintain the fiber link to the old unit we can get out

any thoughts?

Richard Burts · ‎01-01-2008

Bill

Here are a couple of thoughts:

- is it possible that the connection to the Internet is active on the original switch and did not get moved to the new switch?

- is it possible that the connection to the Internet on the new switch is not configured correctly?

- is it possible that the route statements on the new switch were not changed correctly?

- is it possible that there is an ARP issue and that the Internet connection device (which you have not identified for us) has an ARP entry for the original switch and not for the new switch?

- is it possible that the end stations have a default gateway configured which is the old switch and not the new switch?

- is it possible that the Internet connection device has a route for how to get to the internal network that points to the original switch and not the new switch?

- is it possible that the Internet connection device will allow only a single active connection and prefers the original switch and not the new switch?

You may consider these possibilities and whether any of them seem to fit your situation. If they do not then it would be helpful if you would provide some additional information for us including an explanation of the topology (how are devices connected to the switch, how are switches interconnected, how are switches connected to the Internet connection device, etc), what is the Internet connection device and how is it connected to the switches, what is the IP addressing logic (what subnets are used where, what default gateways are configured, etc), what is the routing logic (is it based on some dynamic routing protocol or on static routes).

HTH

Rick

HTH

Rick

b.swank · ‎01-01-2008

Rick

thanks again, to provide more info here we go.

topolgy: bonded T's 3Meg pipe, cisco 2811, cisco pix 515ur, 6509, all via copper. ip addressing is changing was 7 / 24's. on the new core sw (6509-e) 8 /22 and 11 /24's expanding the vlan usage, better addressing scheme. each vlan has it's own subnet, 40 60 96 100-110 120 140 160 200 240 different vlans for different users and or groups,

-the internet connection did get moved to the new switch and active

-i will double check the config for the port ( assuming your refering to auto neg or 100 full or half etc...)

-we triple checked the route statments

-I am liking the ARP issue that seam to make sence to what we are seeing

-well the test stations and dhcp with the new addressing scheme are working as long as the old 6509 is connected (it does not have route statements for the new )

-I am likeing this one as well

-if the device (pix 515ur) only prefers the original switch how can we over come this?

we did apply the same addressing to the inter net and more so the same ip to the pix as the old 6509, but still failed to connect to the internet, default GW's were all tripled checked

I hope this helps as well as the suggestions

i'll keep you posted.

Richard Burts · ‎01-01-2008

Bill

I have seen instances where each of these possibilities that I listed have caused problems. The problem with ARP entries and the problem with the Internet connecting device route to the internal network are particularly tricky because we tend to not look at them as closely as we should.

If you have not yet resolved this issue it might be helpful if you could supply the addressing used on the 2811, the PIX, and both switches. It would also be helpful if you could provide the details of the route statements that you removed from the original switch and of the route statements that you added to the new switch.

HTH

Rick

HTH

Rick

b.swank · ‎01-02-2008

We got it Rick, a combo of the Pix and the arp and an acl

thanks for your help.

Richard Burts · ‎01-02-2008

Bill

Thanks for posting back that you had resolved your problem. It makes the forum more useful when people can read about problems and can recognize which problems were resolved and can find what was the cause of the problem.

HTH

Rick

HTH

Rick

b.swank · ‎01-02-2008

I aggree, but i do not know how to put the Check mark to indicate the problem was resolved, Due the complexity of our network combined with the agressiveness of our changes we are making, re-address, removal of our frame on the WAN, new fiber connection to the internet, new core switch 6509-e ios not cat, new remote site with two seperate T's addition of a new remote site for our video conf, active directory for our students, raidus IAS, for wireless all in only 10 days every set of eyes help did i mention there is only 3 of us, god i love this field :)