Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 51383 2004-11-19 08:42:00 IP Routing Issues Growly (6) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
293931 2004-11-19 08:42:00 Hello,

I recently felt the urge to further separate myself from the Internet by adding another two routers - totalling four, but things didn't go smoothly.

For learning purposes, I have borrowed a Cisco 3640 router from my good friends at Telecom (thanks to my connections).

So anyway, the routers are a D-Link DSL-500, D-Link DI-707P, Cisco 3640 and Windows Server 2003 running LAN routing services.

They go like so:

Myself --> Windows router --> Cisco router --> DI707p --> DSL500 --> The internet.

Now this is where it gets confusing - so I have drawn a diagram:

sal.neoburn.net

Now here's where I get confused. Neither I nor the Windows server can ping past the DI 707p (the third router, if you will). The next router along, the Cisco, can ping everything though!

It's not the Windows server at fault (though I wish it were), because i temporarily joined the 192.168.1.0 subnet to skip the windows server and had the same problem. I also put my pc on the 192.168.3.0 subnet (between the cisco and the di707p) and it worked fine (i could even ping back to the server).

Therefore the only place the problem could lie is the Cisco router's config for routing (cause it itself can ping everything), the DI707p because it's just crap, or the DSL 500 cause it's set to do something funny once a node certain subnets away starts asking it for help.

My route tables, with the exception of the windows server, are fine. (The windows one ain't cause I'm sure if it's right).

Here they are:

My self:
Default gateway: 192.168.0.5 (Windows Server)

Windows server:
192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.5 Directly connected
192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.2 Directly connected
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 Static (outbound int, the one with ...1.0)
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.5 Static (inbound int, the one with ...0.0)

Cisco:
192.168.0.0 via 192.168.1.2
192.168.1.0 directly connected
192.168.3.0 directly connected
192.168.4.0 via 192.168.3.1 (the di707p's IP) [this line is redundant]
0.0.0.0 via 192.168.3.1

DI707p:
192.168.4.0 via 192.168.3.1
192.168.3.0 directly connected
192.168.1.0 via 192.168.3.2 (cisco interface)
192.168.0.0 via 192.168.3.2

Now what's more of concern is that I at one stage took the Cisco router out completely, and replaced it with the Windows one. The situation was the same - I could not ping 192.168.4.1 and beyond, but I could ping the DI-707p, including it's 192.168.4.0 interface. 192.168.4.1 was only successfuly reached in that situation if I added a static route to it in server, as the 0.0.0.0 had no effect.

I know this is extremely hard to follow - but any help would be greatly appreciated - please ask so I can clear things up... 		Growly (6)
293932 2004-11-19 09:22:00 ARGH.

The horrors of IP routing :(.

I feel your pain Growly. Seems to me to be with the DI-707P... Check out it's settings I'd say.

Cheers 		george12 (7)
293933 2004-11-19 09:32:00 That's just the thing - the settings can be no different!

Bloody no gateway of last resort, no 0.0.0.0, no anything-helpful! 		Growly (6)
293934 2004-11-19 12:49:00 Chuck out the DI-707P?

That would solve all it seems. After all, 3 routers is surely enough? Or are you really worried about hackers, that you must be 4 machines away from the internet...

Oh yes I remember, you just like networking lots :). After all, who doesn't :D? On this forum at least.....

Better idea, give it to me.

Cheers George 		george12 (7)
293935 2004-11-19 21:40:00 Well removing it would be easy - see the intention is to get it to work with four routers, and taking one out would be cheating. Growly (6)
293936 2004-11-19 23:06:00 Growly, is that paranoia, or have you got something that others out there want desperately. theotherone (1421)
293937 2004-11-20 10:45:00 me thinks your issue might be with subnet mask settings on the windows box. robsonde (120)
293938 2004-11-20 10:47:00 Interesting robsonde - although everything looks fine, and the issue is still there when the Windows box is out of the question, I must admit that the IP route table on server 2003--- well just plain sucks. Growly (6)
1