Simple Cisco 1841 router configuration has bad latency on one side.

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by r123@pacbell.net, Feb 8, 2007.

  1. Guest

    I don't know much about routers but we have one setup to bridge two
    subnets. Our office side is at 172.16.1.1 and our test area is at
    172.56.0.1. If I ping the router on our side at 172.16.1.1 it's almost
    100% <1ms running ping. Now the test area side is all over the place
    and slowly climbs to 1500ms or so and then goes back down to 1-3ms for
    a short time.

    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1439ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=639ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255
     
    , Feb 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, wrote:
    > I don't know much about routers but we have one setup to bridge two
    > subnets. Our office side is at 172.16.1.1 and our test area is at
    > 172.56.0.1. If I ping the router on our side at 172.16.1.1 it's almost
    > 100% <1ms running ping. Now the test area side is all over the place
    > and slowly climbs to 1500ms or so and then goes back down to 1-3ms for
    > a short time.
    >
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1439ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=639ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255


    The first thing I would check would be the router interface connecting
    to the test area. Look for any errors that are incrementing. If the
    router interface is connected to a switch, I would also check the
    switch interface. The fact that the response times vary makes me
    think that there's high CPU utilization or a similar type issue.
     
    , Feb 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Feb 8, 10:50 pm, wrote:
    > On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > I don't know much about routers but we have one setup to bridge two
    > > subnets. Our office side is at 172.16.1.1 and our test area is at
    > > 172.56.0.1. If I ping the router on our side at 172.16.1.1 it's almost
    > > 100% <1ms running ping. Now the test area side is all over the place
    > > and slowly climbs to 1500ms or so and then goes back down to 1-3ms for
    > > a short time.

    >
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1439ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=639ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255

    >
    > The first thing I would check would be the router interface connecting
    > to the test area. Look for any errors that are incrementing. If the
    > router interface is connected to a switch, I would also check the
    > switch interface. The fact that the response times vary makes me
    > think that there's high CPU utilization or a similar type issue.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Hey, thanks for the info. Now even if I just have a test computer
    plugged directly into the router on the test area side we still have
    the connectivity and ping issues. So I'd be looking in the router for
    these errors or in the HP pro curve switch the on our office side that
    the router connect to? As there looks to be no issues on the office
    side of things.
     
    , Feb 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Feb 8, 10:50 pm, wrote:
    > On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > I don't know much about routers but we have one setup to bridge two
    > > subnets. Our office side is at 172.16.1.1 and our test area is at
    > > 172.56.0.1. If I ping the router on our side at 172.16.1.1 it's almost
    > > 100% <1ms running ping. Now the test area side is all over the place
    > > and slowly climbs to 1500ms or so and then goes back down to 1-3ms for
    > > a short time.

    >
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1439ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=639ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255

    >
    > The first thing I would check would be the router interface connecting
    > to the test area. Look for any errors that are incrementing. If the
    > router interface is connected to a switch, I would also check the
    > switch interface. The fact that the response times vary makes me
    > think that there's high CPU utilization or a similar type issue.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Hey, thanks for the info. Now even if I just have a test computer
    plugged directly into the router on the test area side we still have
    the connectivity and ping issues. So I'd be looking in the router for
    these errors or in the HP pro curve switch that's on our office side
    and that the router connects to? As there looks to be no issues on the
    office side of things.
     
    , Feb 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Feb 9, 7:47 am, wrote:
    > On Feb 8, 10:50 pm, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, wrote:

    >
    > > > I don't know much about routers but we have one setup to bridge two
    > > > subnets. Our office side is at 172.16.1.1 and our test area is at
    > > > 172.56.0.1. If I ping the router on our side at 172.16.1.1 it's almost
    > > > 100% <1ms running ping. Now the test area side is all over the place
    > > > and slowly climbs to 1500ms or so and then goes back down to 1-3ms for
    > > > a short time.

    >
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1439ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=639ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255

    >
    > > The first thing I would check would be the router interface connecting
    > > to the test area. Look for any errors that are incrementing. If the
    > > router interface is connected to a switch, I would also check the
    > > switch interface. The fact that the response times vary makes me
    > > think that there's high CPU utilization or a similar type issue.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Hey, thanks for the info. Now even if I just have a test computer
    > plugged directly into the router on the test area side we still have
    > the connectivity and ping issues. So I'd be looking in the router for
    > these errors or in the HP pro curve switch that's on our office side
    > and that the router connects to? As there looks to be no issues on the
    > office side of things.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Can you log into the router and do a show interface and post the
    results? The command should be "show int fast 0/x" and you should
    just need to replace the x with the actual interface number.
     
    , Feb 10, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    On Feb 10, 11:12 am, wrote:
    > On Feb 9, 7:47 am, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 8, 10:50 pm, wrote:

    >
    > > > On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, wrote:

    >
    > > > > I don't know much about routers but we have one setup to bridge two
    > > > > subnets. Our office side is at 172.16.1.1 and our test area is at
    > > > > 172.56.0.1. If I ping the router on our side at 172.16.1.1 it's almost
    > > > > 100% <1ms running ping. Now the test area side is all over the place
    > > > > and slowly climbs to 1500ms or so and then goes back down to 1-3ms for
    > > > > a short time.

    >
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1439ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1106ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=639ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=279ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=164ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=255
    > > > > Reply from 172.56.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=255

    >
    > > > The first thing I would check would be the router interface connecting
    > > > to the test area. Look for any errors that are incrementing. If the
    > > > router interface is connected to a switch, I would also check the
    > > > switch interface. The fact that the response times vary makes me
    > > > think that there's high CPU utilization or a similar type issue.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > > Hey, thanks for the info. Now even if I just have a test computer
    > > plugged directly into the router on the test area side we still have
    > > the connectivity and ping issues. So I'd be looking in the router for
    > > these errors or in the HP pro curve switch that's on our office side
    > > and that the router connects to? As there looks to be no issues on the
    > > office side of things.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Can you log into the router and do a show interface and post the
    > results? The command should be "show int fast 0/x" and you should
    > just need to replace the x with the actual interface number.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Thanks again for the reply. I was able to (kinda) fix the problem by
    adding a route to my PC that sends anything going to the 172.56.0.0
    subnet to our side of the test area router.

    route add 172.56.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 172.16.1.1

    Circumventing our main office router seemed to do the trick. I don't
    know if it's because of a configuration issue or the fact that our
    main router is too overloaded to handle the extra traffic going to the
    test area. Is there a proper way to setup our main router that should
    handle this reroute to the test area router with no problems?
     
    , Feb 13, 2007
    #6
  7. On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:32:53 -0800, r123 wrote:

    >
    > Thanks again for the reply. I was able to (kinda) fix the problem by
    > adding a route to my PC that sends anything going to the 172.56.0.0
    > subnet to our side of the test area router.
    >
    > route add 172.56.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 172.16.1.1
    >
    > Circumventing our main office router seemed to do the trick. I don't
    > know if it's because of a configuration issue or the fact that our
    > main router is too overloaded to handle the extra traffic going to the
    > test area. Is there a proper way to setup our main router that should
    > handle this reroute to the test area router with no problems?


    It 'sounds' like your main router, which has suddenly popped it's head
    into the equation, needs a route to the 172.56.0.0 network and to be
    configured to send ip redirects on the internal lan interface, i.e.

    !
    interface <your internal lan>
    ip address 172.16.x.x 255.255.x.x
    ip redirects
    !
    ip route 172.56.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.16.1.1
    !

    IP redirects on the interface may be the default.

    --
    Rgds,
    Martin
     
    Martin Gallagher, Feb 14, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    693
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 15, 2004
  2. Mark Williams
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    846
    clubfoot
    Apr 25, 2006
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    9,059
    Michael Newbery
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. -pau.fr
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    746
    -pau.fr
    Oct 29, 2006
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    566
Loading...

Share This Page