cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
398
Views
0
Helpful
1
Replies

secondary address and router lockup.

aoshea
Level 1
Level 1

Just wondering if anyone has had this problem as well, but I have a wan setup where a router at a spoke site intermitantly locks up.

The only thing which seems to point to a problem with the secondary address is that routing between two subnets on the local site (spoke) are also affected during the fault. I am looking at changing this config to subinterfaces instead of the secondary addresses but would like a second option.

Here is the relevant extract from the current config.

sh run

Building configuration...

Current configuration : 2983 bytes

!

version 12.2

service timestamps debug datetime msec localtime

service timestamps log datetime msec localtime

no service password-encryption

!

hostname xxx

!

logging buffered 10000 debugging

!

clock timezone GMT 0

clock summer-time BST recurring last Sun Mar 1:00 last Sun Oct 1:00

ip subnet-zero

!

!

no ip domain-lookup

!

call rsvp-sync

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

interface FastEthernet0/0

no ip address

no ip split-horizon eigrp 100

duplex auto

speed auto

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.1101

encapsulation dot1Q 1101

ip address 172.16.31.6 255.255.255.252

no ip redirects

!

interface FastEthernet0/0.1111

encapsulation dot1Q 1111

ip address 172.16.32.6 255.255.255.252

--More-- no ip redirects

!

interface FastEthernet0/1

ip address 192.1.13.100 255.255.255.0 secondary

ip address 192.1.3.15 255.255.255.0

speed auto

half-duplex

!

router eigrp 100

redistribute connected

redistribute static

network 172.16.31.4 0.0.0.3

network 172.16.32.4 0.0.0.3

network 192.1.3.0

network 192.1.13.0

no auto-summary

!

ip classless

ip route 192.1.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.1.2.57

ip route 192.1.6.0 255.255.255.0 192.1.3.236

ip route 192.1.7.0 255.255.255.0 192.1.3.211

ip route 192.1.8.0 255.255.255.0 192.1.2.57

ip route 192.1.9.0 255.255.255.0 192.1.3.1

!

logging 192.1.3.166

snmp-server enable traps snmp authentication linkdown linkup coldstart warmstart

no snmp-server enable traps tty

snmp-server enable traps isdn call-information

snmp-server enable traps hsrp

snmp-server enable traps config

snmp-server enable traps entity

snmp-server enable traps envmon

snmp-server enable traps syslog

!

dial-peer cor custom

!

====================================================

version details are;

sh vers

Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software

IOS (tm) C2600 Software (C2600-IS-M), Version 12.2(21a), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)

Copyright (c) 1986-2004 by cisco Systems, Inc.

Compiled Fri 09-Jan-04 19:40 by kellmill

Image text-base: 0x8000808C, data-base: 0x81116ADC

ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(7r) [cmong 7r], RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

xxx uptime is 6 hours, 30 minutes

System returned to ROM by power-on

System image file is "flash:c2600-is-mz.122-21a.bin"

cisco 2621XM (MPC860P) processor (revision 0x100) with 93184K/5120K bytes of memory.

Processor board ID xxx

M860 processor: part number 5, mask 2

Bridging software.

X.25 software, Version 3.0.0.

2 FastEthernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s)

32K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.

32768K bytes of processor board System flash (Read/Write)

Configuration register is 0x2102

Please help.

Regards,

Adrian.

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Craig Norborg
Level 4
Level 4

You could potentially have all 4 ethernet segments on the same interface if you used dot1q trunking like you did for the first 2 subinterfaces... I wouldn't think that having the secondary IP address should be causing any problems though.

Personally I would nail the FastE's at 100/full if possible. Running them as "auto/auto" or "auto/half" isn't a good idea. I know that dot1q trunking off a router doesn't work very well on 10/half and I bet it would have some of the same problems with 100/half too. So I would recommend putting them on 100/full if possible...

View solution in original post

1 Reply 1

Craig Norborg
Level 4
Level 4

You could potentially have all 4 ethernet segments on the same interface if you used dot1q trunking like you did for the first 2 subinterfaces... I wouldn't think that having the secondary IP address should be causing any problems though.

Personally I would nail the FastE's at 100/full if possible. Running them as "auto/auto" or "auto/half" isn't a good idea. I know that dot1q trunking off a router doesn't work very well on 10/half and I bet it would have some of the same problems with 100/half too. So I would recommend putting them on 100/full if possible...