Re: Problems with BARRNET network 131.119.250.119
Our mailer tries to deliver mail to 131.119.250.119 (bargate.silvaco.com, SILVACO.BARRNET.NET) and gets host unreachable. Routes for 131.119.0.0 are given as: gw3#sh ip ro 131.119.0.0 Routing entry for 131.119.0.0 (mask 255.255.255.0), 2 known subnets Redistributing via igrp 51771 B 131.119.246.0 [200/100] via 193.23.5.33, 16:10:55 B 131.119.253.0 [200/100] via 193.23.5.33, 16:11:51 This is odd. You should have a route to 131.119.0.0/255.255.0.0 which handles all subnets of 131.119. Is it useful to add Class-B-Subnets to the routing table whilst we are trying to reduce Class-C entries? This was an oversight. We are sending the subnet routes to ENSS128 in order to insure correct next-hop resolution across our DMZ network. These subnets should not have been sent to other external peers and no longer will be. Vince Fuller/BARRNet P.S. In the future, you will receive faster response if you send BARRNet problem reports directly to us, either to "noc@BARRNET.NET" or to the MERIT-maintained trouble list "as200-trouble@MERIT.EDU".
From: noc@barrnet.net Subject: Re: Problems with BARRNET network 131.119.250.119 Our mailer tries to deliver mail to 131.119.250.119 (bargate.silvaco.com, SILVACO.BARRNET.NET) and gets host unreachable. Routes for 131.119.0.0 ar
e given as:
gw3#sh ip ro 131.119.0.0 Routing entry for 131.119.0.0 (mask 255.255.255.0), 2 known subnets Redistributing via igrp 51771 B 131.119.246.0 [200/100] via 193.23.5.33, 16:10:55 B 131.119.253.0 [200/100] via 193.23.5.33, 16:11:51 This is odd. You should have a route to 131.119.0.0/255.255.0.0 which handles all subnets of 131.119. Did you turn off auto-summary, or did you add explicit network commands? If you turned off auto-summary, you'll no longer generate a 131.119/16 route? FYI, this is just a general warning to everyone... no auto-summary does what you tell it to do. :-) (Vince, let's take this private and we can work out what went wrong...just in case.) Is it useful to add Class-B-Subnets to the routing table whilst we are trying to reduce Class-C entries? This was an oversight. We are sending the subnet routes to ENSS128 in order to insure correct next-hop resolution across our DMZ network. These subnets should not have been sent to other external peers and no longer will be. Vince Fuller/BARRNet P.S. In the future, you will receive faster response if you send BARRNet problem reports directly to us, either to "noc@BARRNET.NET" or to the MERIT-maintained trouble list "as200-trouble@MERIT.EDU".
Is it useful to add Class-B-Subnets to the routing table whilst we are trying to reduce Class-C entries?
This was an oversight. We are sending the subnet routes to ENSS128 in order to insure correct next-hop resolution across our DMZ network. These subnets should not have been sent to other external peers and no longer will be.
Vince Fuller/BARRNet
These must be going through another AS path. AS 690 blocks further redistribution of your more specific routes. Does anyone have an AS path for these routes? Curtis
participants (3)
-
Curtis Villamizar -
noc＠barrnet.net -
Paul Traina