<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hi David,<br>
<br>
Great!! I'm not going mad!<br>
<br>
Looks like I need to talk to Peter (JIA) ... think we need to
tempoarily shut down this interface on HVC until they plug the cord
back in on JIA!<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
<br>
On 6/03/2012 12:34 AM, David Nuttall wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F54C0CB.5040008@smithsgully.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Hi Robert,<br>
<br>
Things are going OK till you get to JLP at Heidelberg.
(10.10.81.33 is the incoming interface from Box Hill)<br>
<br>
After that is where it goes bad.<br>
<br>
If it goes direct to GHO (10.10.80.5) all is good.<br>
If it goes via HVC (10.10.2.225) it gets lost.<br>
<br>
1) Looking at OSPF at JLP right now, it wants to send traffic to
10.10.129.64/28 via HVC with a cost of 20! There is a cost of 10
from JLP to HVC. That suggests 10.10.129.64/28 is directly
connected to HVC with a cost of 10 on it's interface.<br>
<br>
2) I pinged all of the addresses in 10.10.129.64/28 from JLP and
a response came back from 10.10.129.70 on the HVC interface. Time
was 1 mS.<br>
<br>
3) So it looks like you are right, 10.10.129.64/28 is on both HVC
and GHO.<br>
<br>
4) A couple of guesses.... Maybe an attempt to directly link HVC
with GHO after JIA died? Maybe JIA was bridging HVC and GHO?
Someone will know!<br>
<br>
Dave.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>