11-18-2008 11:39 PM - edited 03-04-2019 12:24 AM
Hello. Do anyone see what the problem could be ?
There is a route in vrf (catalyst 6506):
Sw2#sh ip route vrf DMZ 10.249.17.0
Routing entry for 10.249.17.0/29
Known via "ospf 501", distance 110, metric 2, type intra area
Last update from 10.249.207.70 on GigabitEthernet1/1.2024, 00:01:12 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 10.249.207.70, from 10.249.17.1, 00:01:12 ago, via GigabitEthernet1/1.2024
Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
And the same route for more specific hosts:
Sw2#sh ip route vrf DMZ 10.249.17.3
Routing entry for 10.249.17.0/29
Known via "ospf 501", distance 110, metric 2, type intra area
Last update from 10.249.207.70 on GigabitEthernet1/1.2024, 00:01:26 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 10.249.207.70, from 10.249.17.1, 00:01:26 ago, via GigabitEthernet1/1.2024
Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
Sw2#sh ip route vrf DMZ 10.249.17.4
Routing entry for 10.249.17.0/29
Known via "ospf 501", distance 110, metric 2, type intra area
Last update from 10.249.207.70 on GigabitEthernet1/1.2024, 00:01:34 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 10.249.207.70, from 10.249.17.1, 00:01:34 ago, via GigabitEthernet1/1.2024
Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
when i tracert to on host:
Sw2#traceroute vrf DMZ 10.249.17.4
Tracing the route to 10.249.17.4
1 10.249.207.70 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
2 10.249.17.4 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
all correct!!!!!
BUT when i tracert (or ping) to another host in the same subnet
traceroute vrf DMZ 10.249.17.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.249.17.3
1 * * *
2 * * *
switch don't reach next hop router!!!!!
There is not ACL on next-hop router.
I can't explain this behavior.
Do anyone see what the problem could be ?
Thank you for any help
11-19-2008 12:01 AM
Hello Dmitriy,
to detect if there is a CEF multilaer switching issue on the C6500 you can:
add a static route in VRF for host 10.249.17.3
this should trigger a CEF recalculation and could be a temporary fix.
Another method could be that of adding an ACL outbound permitting everything but with the log option so that is not processed by normal CEF table.
We experienced similar problems but in global routing table for C6500 that receives full BGP tables from two border routers.
We performed also an IOS upgrade on the C6500.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
11-19-2008 12:49 AM
hello Giuseppe.
thank you for answer.
but, unfortunally, you advice was not helpful.
neither adding static route, nor ACL with log option.
11-19-2008 04:40 AM
Hello Dmitriy,
I would move the focus on the next-hop router using the same "tools".
Hope to help
Giuseppe
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: