Wonky tracking?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Tuc, Aug 2, 2007.

  1. Tuc

    Tuc Guest

    Hi,

    3640 running c3640-jk9s-mz.124-13a.bin .

    I have a set of ip sla/tracks, as such :
    ip sla monitor 100
    type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 204.107.90.128 source-ipaddr
    192.168.75.49
    timeout 4000
    frequency 10
    ip sla monitor schedule 100 life forever start-time now
    ip sla monitor 101
    type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 64.200.58.69 source-ipaddr
    192.168.75.49
    timeout 4000
    frequency 10
    ip sla monitor schedule 101 life forever start-time now
    ip sla monitor 200
    type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 204.107.90.128 source-ipaddr
    192.168.0.3
    timeout 4000
    frequency 10
    ip sla monitor schedule 200 life forever start-time now
    ip sla monitor 201
    type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 64.200.58.69 source-ipaddr 192.168.0.3
    timeout 4000
    frequency 10
    ip sla monitor schedule 201 life forever start-time now


    track 100 rtr 100 reachability
    delay down 30 up 180
    !
    track 101 rtr 101 reachability
    delay down 30 up 180
    !
    track 200 rtr 200 reachability
    delay down 10 up 20
    !
    track 201 rtr 201 reachability
    delay down 10 up 20

    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 name SEABREEZE track 100
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 name HUGHES track 200
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250 name SEABREEZE_FB
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251 name HUGHES_FB

    ip local policy route-map LocalPolicy

    ip access-list extended Ping-HUGHES-VJOFN
    permit icmp host 192.168.0.3 host 204.107.90.128
    ip access-list extended Ping-HUGHES-WCGRTR
    permit icmp host 192.168.0.3 host 64.200.58.69
    ip access-list extended Ping-SEABREEZE-VJOFN
    permit icmp host 192.168.75.49 host 204.107.90.128
    ip access-list extended Ping-SEABREEZE-WCGRTR
    permit icmp host 192.168.75.49 host 64.200.58.69

    route-map LocalPolicy permit 10
    match ip address Ping-SEABREEZE-VJOFN
    set ip next-hop 192.168.75.1
    !
    route-map LocalPolicy permit 11
    match ip address Ping-SEABREEZE-WCGRTR
    set ip next-hop 192.168.75.1
    !
    route-map LocalPolicy permit 20
    match ip address Ping-HUGHES-VJOFN
    set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1
    !
    route-map LocalPolicy permit 21
    match ip address Ping-HUGHES-WCGRTR
    set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1


    The problem I have is :

    C3640-1# sho track
    (100 taken out)
    Track 200
    Response Time Reporter 200 reachability
    Reachability is Up
    28 changes, last change 10:47:07
    Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    Latest operation return code: OK
    Latest RTT (millisecs) 691
    Tracked by:
    STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    Track 201
    Response Time Reporter 201 reachability
    Reachability is Down
    2 changes, last change 12:53:33
    Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    Latest operation return code: Timeout

    Which I don't get, since :

    C3640-1#ping 64.200.58.69 source 192.168.0.3

    Type escape sequence to abort.
    Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 64.200.58.69, timeout is 2 seconds:
    Packet sent with a source address of 192.168.0.3
    !!!!!
    Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max =
    768/806/856 ms

    Any way to figure out whats happening (or not happening)?

    The other issue I've had is that 100 has been down, 200 has
    been up, and routing shows :

    S* 0.0.0.0/0 [250/0] via 192.168.75.1

    Shouldn't it be showing 11, since the track 200 up should be
    used before the 250 fallback?

    Thanks, Tuc
    Tuc, Aug 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tuc

    Tuc Guest

    Hi,

    I just caught this happening so I could document it :

    C3640-1# sho track br
    Track Object Parameter Value
    100 rtr 100 reachability Down, delayed
    Up (119 secs remaining)
    101 rtr 101 reachability Down, delayed
    Up (29 secs remaining)
    200 rtr 200 reachability Up
    201 rtr 201 reachability Up


    So track 100/101 are down, 200 and 201 are up.

    C3640-1# sho track
    Track 100
    Response Time Reporter 100 reachability
    Reachability is Down, delayed Up (90 secs remaining)
    613 changes, last change 00:27:45
    Delay up 180 secs, down 30 secs
    Latest operation return code: Timeout
    Tracked by:
    STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    Track 101
    Response Time Reporter 101 reachability
    Reachability is Down, delayed Up (1 sec remaining)
    52 changes, last change 00:27:44
    Delay up 180 secs, down 30 secs
    Latest operation return code: Timeout
    Track 200
    Response Time Reporter 200 reachability
    Reachability is Up
    54 changes, last change 06:26:40
    Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    Latest operation return code: OK
    Latest RTT (millisecs) 707
    Tracked by:
    STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    Track 201
    Response Time Reporter 201 reachability
    Reachability is Up
    29 changes, last change 04:39:40
    Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    Latest operation return code: OK
    Latest RTT (millisecs) 700

    This confirms it....

    C3640-1#sho ip route
    Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
    D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
    N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
    E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
    i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS
    level-2
    ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user
    static route
    o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route

    Gateway of last resort is 192.168.75.1 to network 0.0.0.0

    C 192.168.75.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
    C 192.168.0.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet1/0
    C 192.168.3.0/24 is directly connected, BVI1
    S* 0.0.0.0/0 [250/0] via 192.168.75.1


    But wait, its using the "250" distanced route. My routing is :

    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 name SEABREEZE track 100
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 name HUGHES track 200
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250 name SEABREEZE_FB
    ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251 name HUGHES_FB

    So I would think "SEABREEZE" is out because its down, and "HUGHES"
    would be in because its up. But its going to "SEABREEZE_FB" as if
    HUGHES was down!

    What/why?

    Tuc
    On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, Tuc <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > 3640 running c3640-jk9s-mz.124-13a.bin .
    >
    > I have a set of ip sla/tracks, as such :
    > ip sla monitor 100
    > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 204.107.90.128 source-ipaddr
    > 192.168.75.49
    > timeout 4000
    > frequency 10
    > ip sla monitor schedule 100 life forever start-time now
    > ip sla monitor 101
    > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 64.200.58.69 source-ipaddr
    > 192.168.75.49
    > timeout 4000
    > frequency 10
    > ip sla monitor schedule 101 life forever start-time now
    > ip sla monitor 200
    > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 204.107.90.128 source-ipaddr
    > 192.168.0.3
    > timeout 4000
    > frequency 10
    > ip sla monitor schedule 200 life forever start-time now
    > ip sla monitor 201
    > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 64.200.58.69 source-ipaddr 192.168.0.3
    > timeout 4000
    > frequency 10
    > ip sla monitor schedule 201 life forever start-time now
    >
    > track 100 rtr 100 reachability
    > delay down 30 up 180
    > !
    > track 101 rtr 101 reachability
    > delay down 30 up 180
    > !
    > track 200 rtr 200 reachability
    > delay down 10 up 20
    > !
    > track 201 rtr 201 reachability
    > delay down 10 up 20
    >
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 name SEABREEZE track 100
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 name HUGHES track 200
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250 name SEABREEZE_FB
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251 name HUGHES_FB
    >
    > ip local policy route-map LocalPolicy
    >
    > ip access-list extended Ping-HUGHES-VJOFN
    > permit icmp host 192.168.0.3 host 204.107.90.128
    > ip access-list extended Ping-HUGHES-WCGRTR
    > permit icmp host 192.168.0.3 host 64.200.58.69
    > ip access-list extended Ping-SEABREEZE-VJOFN
    > permit icmp host 192.168.75.49 host 204.107.90.128
    > ip access-list extended Ping-SEABREEZE-WCGRTR
    > permit icmp host 192.168.75.49 host 64.200.58.69
    >
    > route-map LocalPolicy permit 10
    > match ip address Ping-SEABREEZE-VJOFN
    > set ip next-hop 192.168.75.1
    > !
    > route-map LocalPolicy permit 11
    > match ip address Ping-SEABREEZE-WCGRTR
    > set ip next-hop 192.168.75.1
    > !
    > route-map LocalPolicy permit 20
    > match ip address Ping-HUGHES-VJOFN
    > set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1
    > !
    > route-map LocalPolicy permit 21
    > match ip address Ping-HUGHES-WCGRTR
    > set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1
    >
    > The problem I have is :
    >
    > C3640-1# sho track
    > (100 taken out)
    > Track 200
    > Response Time Reporter 200 reachability
    > Reachability is Up
    > 28 changes, last change 10:47:07
    > Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    > Latest operation return code: OK
    > Latest RTT (millisecs) 691
    > Tracked by:
    > STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    > Track 201
    > Response Time Reporter 201 reachability
    > Reachability is Down
    > 2 changes, last change 12:53:33
    > Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    > Latest operation return code: Timeout
    >
    > Which I don't get, since :
    >
    > C3640-1#ping 64.200.58.69 source 192.168.0.3
    >
    > Type escape sequence to abort.
    > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 64.200.58.69, timeout is 2 seconds:
    > Packet sent with a source address of 192.168.0.3
    > !!!!!
    > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max =
    > 768/806/856 ms
    >
    > Any way to figure out whats happening (or not happening)?
    >
    > The other issue I've had is that 100 has been down, 200 has
    > been up, and routing shows :
    >
    > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [250/0] via 192.168.75.1
    >
    > Shouldn't it be showing 11, since the track 200 up should be
    > used before the 250 fallback?
    >
    > Thanks, Tuc
    Tuc, Aug 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tuc

    Tuc Guest

    Hi,

    ANYONE have any input on this? This issue is really getting
    problematic. I've
    tried on the cisco-nsp group, and they pointed me here. To the best of
    my knowledge,
    from what I see/read, I have everything set up properly. But it keeps
    skipping my
    11 weight/200 track and going to the 250 weight route which is
    supposed to be a fallback.
    But the problem is its falling there when it shouldn't be. 200 is up,
    up fine, and available.

    Thanks, Tuc

    On Aug 2, 9:48 pm, Tuc <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I just caught this happening so I could document it :
    >
    > C3640-1# sho track br
    > Track Object Parameter Value
    > 100 rtr 100 reachability Down, delayed
    > Up (119 secs remaining)
    > 101 rtr 101 reachability Down, delayed
    > Up (29 secs remaining)
    > 200 rtr 200 reachability Up
    > 201 rtr 201 reachability Up
    >
    > So track 100/101 are down, 200 and 201 are up.
    >
    > C3640-1# sho track
    > Track 100
    > Response Time Reporter 100 reachability
    > Reachability is Down, delayed Up (90 secs remaining)
    > 613 changes, last change 00:27:45
    > Delay up 180 secs, down 30 secs
    > Latest operation return code: Timeout
    > Tracked by:
    > STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    > Track 101
    > Response Time Reporter 101 reachability
    > Reachability is Down, delayed Up (1 sec remaining)
    > 52 changes, last change 00:27:44
    > Delay up 180 secs, down 30 secs
    > Latest operation return code: Timeout
    > Track 200
    > Response Time Reporter 200 reachability
    > Reachability is Up
    > 54 changes, last change 06:26:40
    > Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    > Latest operation return code: OK
    > Latest RTT (millisecs) 707
    > Tracked by:
    > STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    > Track 201
    > Response Time Reporter 201 reachability
    > Reachability is Up
    > 29 changes, last change 04:39:40
    > Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    > Latest operation return code: OK
    > Latest RTT (millisecs) 700
    >
    > This confirms it....
    >
    > C3640-1#sho ip route
    > Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
    > D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
    > N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
    > E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
    > i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS
    > level-2
    > ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user
    > static route
    > o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
    >
    > Gateway of last resort is 192.168.75.1 to network 0.0.0.0
    >
    > C 192.168.75.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
    > C 192.168.0.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet1/0
    > C 192.168.3.0/24 is directly connected, BVI1
    > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [250/0] via 192.168.75.1
    >
    > But wait, its using the "250" distanced route. My routing is :
    >
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 name SEABREEZE track 100
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 name HUGHES track 200
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250 name SEABREEZE_FB
    > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251 name HUGHES_FB
    >
    > So I would think "SEABREEZE" is out because its down, and "HUGHES"
    > would be in because its up. But its going to "SEABREEZE_FB" as if
    > HUGHES was down!
    >
    > What/why?
    >
    > Tuc
    > On Aug 2, 1:19 pm, Tuc <> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > 3640 running c3640-jk9s-mz.124-13a.bin .

    >
    > > I have a set of ip sla/tracks, as such :
    > > ip sla monitor 100
    > > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 204.107.90.128 source-ipaddr
    > > 192.168.75.49
    > > timeout 4000
    > > frequency 10
    > > ip sla monitor schedule 100 life forever start-time now
    > > ip sla monitor 101
    > > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 64.200.58.69 source-ipaddr
    > > 192.168.75.49
    > > timeout 4000
    > > frequency 10
    > > ip sla monitor schedule 101 life forever start-time now
    > > ip sla monitor 200
    > > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 204.107.90.128 source-ipaddr
    > > 192.168.0.3
    > > timeout 4000
    > > frequency 10
    > > ip sla monitor schedule 200 life forever start-time now
    > > ip sla monitor 201
    > > type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 64.200.58.69 source-ipaddr 192.168.0.3
    > > timeout 4000
    > > frequency 10
    > > ip sla monitor schedule 201 life forever start-time now

    >
    > > track 100 rtr 100 reachability
    > > delay down 30 up 180
    > > !
    > > track 101 rtr 101 reachability
    > > delay down 30 up 180
    > > !
    > > track 200 rtr 200 reachability
    > > delay down 10 up 20
    > > !
    > > track 201 rtr 201 reachability
    > > delay down 10 up 20

    >
    > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 name SEABREEZE track 100
    > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 name HUGHES track 200
    > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250 name SEABREEZE_FB
    > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251 name HUGHES_FB

    >
    > > ip local policy route-map LocalPolicy

    >
    > > ip access-list extended Ping-HUGHES-VJOFN
    > > permit icmp host 192.168.0.3 host 204.107.90.128
    > > ip access-list extended Ping-HUGHES-WCGRTR
    > > permit icmp host 192.168.0.3 host 64.200.58.69
    > > ip access-list extended Ping-SEABREEZE-VJOFN
    > > permit icmp host 192.168.75.49 host 204.107.90.128
    > > ip access-list extended Ping-SEABREEZE-WCGRTR
    > > permit icmp host 192.168.75.49 host 64.200.58.69

    >
    > > route-map LocalPolicy permit 10
    > > match ip address Ping-SEABREEZE-VJOFN
    > > set ip next-hop 192.168.75.1
    > > !
    > > route-map LocalPolicy permit 11
    > > match ip address Ping-SEABREEZE-WCGRTR
    > > set ip next-hop 192.168.75.1
    > > !
    > > route-map LocalPolicy permit 20
    > > match ip address Ping-HUGHES-VJOFN
    > > set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1
    > > !
    > > route-map LocalPolicy permit 21
    > > match ip address Ping-HUGHES-WCGRTR
    > > set ip next-hop 192.168.0.1

    >
    > > The problem I have is :

    >
    > > C3640-1# sho track
    > > (100 taken out)
    > > Track 200
    > > Response Time Reporter 200 reachability
    > > Reachability is Up
    > > 28 changes, last change 10:47:07
    > > Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    > > Latest operation return code: OK
    > > Latest RTT (millisecs) 691
    > > Tracked by:
    > > STATIC-IP-ROUTING 0
    > > Track 201
    > > Response Time Reporter 201 reachability
    > > Reachability is Down
    > > 2 changes, last change 12:53:33
    > > Delay up 20 secs, down 10 secs
    > > Latest operation return code: Timeout

    >
    > > Which I don't get, since :

    >
    > > C3640-1#ping 64.200.58.69 source 192.168.0.3

    >
    > > Type escape sequence to abort.
    > > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 64.200.58.69, timeout is 2 seconds:
    > > Packet sent with a source address of 192.168.0.3
    > > !!!!!
    > > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max =
    > > 768/806/856 ms

    >
    > > Any way to figure out whats happening (or not happening)?

    >
    > > The other issue I've had is that 100 has been down, 200 has
    > > been up, and routing shows :

    >
    > > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [250/0] via 192.168.75.1

    >
    > > Shouldn't it be showing 11, since the track 200 up should be
    > > used before the 250 fallback?

    >
    > > Thanks, Tuc
    Tuc, Aug 8, 2007
    #3
    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. Splibbilla
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,696
    Splibbilla
    Jul 23, 2005
  2. bluehmann \(removethis\) @mchsi.com

    Tracking Warning

    bluehmann \(removethis\) @mchsi.com, Nov 29, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    483
    Hall_R_Bob
    Dec 11, 2003
  3. Mark Holloway

    HSRP and TRACKING SERIAL PORTS

    Mark Holloway, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,675
    jonathan fernandes
    Jul 15, 2003
  4. Joshua Colvin
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,107
    Joshua Colvin
    Oct 23, 2003
  5. Edw. Peach

    Tracking Someone Tracking Me

    Edw. Peach, Jun 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    621
    Olden Doode
    Jul 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page