[c-nsp] Help with multilink ppp, routing not working correctly..

[Howard Leadmon]

   Hello Seth,

 I actually was digging in the command ref and saw that option, and tried
it, didn't seem to change the routing.  I didn't actually shut the
interface, maybe I need to do that.   I am not sure if that /32 route is
even a problem, just that I did notice it happened I the multilink config,
but not when I just used a standard PtoP T1 link.  Thanks for the suggestion
though.. 


---
Howard Leadmon 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm at rollernet.us]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:22 PM
> To: Howard Leadmon
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Help with multilink ppp, routing not working
> correctly..
> 
> Howard Leadmon wrote:
> >    Hello Diogo,
> >
> >  Thanks for the reply.. Actually I had a dynamic routing protocol
> running on
> > the routers, and even pulled that and tried using static routes.
> Actually
> > as I was just trying to ping interface to interface, no routing at
> all
> > should have been needed, as Router-B would have seen both of the
> /30's as a
> > connected path.
> >
> >  Not sure if you saw my earlier response to Gert, but I did
> afterwards take
> > and tear down the MLPPP bundle, and then just put the /30 from the
> bundle on
> > a single T1 interface.  When I did that, everything worked, traffic
> moved
> > perfectly.  So it's without a doubt something very specific to having
> the
> > Multilink interface up, as only then does the pathway fail.  The only
> thing
> > I can see different when I put it over multilink is that I see a /30
> and a
> > /32 in the routing table from it.  So if I am on router B and do a
> show ip
> > route, I see 192.168.98.28/30 and also a 192.168.98.30/32 both
> pointing to
> > the Multilink1 interface.   Not quite sure why I get that /32 in the
> table,
> > but guessing it's just a quirk of how the MLPPP connection
> establishes.
> >
> 
> Try adding 'no peer neighbor-route' to the multilink config?
> 
> ~Seth