This post is more than 5 years old
5 Practitioner
•
274.2K Posts
0
1756
Two site with the same WAN subnet
Hi
IHAC with same WAN subnet on both sites
For same reason all eth0 are logging a lot of error/collision
Must I configure gateway or I must leave WAN gateway unconfigured ?
This is current settings:
----------------------------------------------------
Cluster Barilla-Milano
----------------------------------------------------
Internal cluster name 0x410291ccfab8fe6d
Product Type RPSE
Cluster management (LAN) IPv4 10.149.103.190
Cluster management (LAN) IPv6 N/A
LAN netmask IPv4 255.255.254.0
LAN netmask IPv6 N/A
WAN netmask IP 255.255.255.0
DATA1 netmask N/A
DATA2 netmask N/A
Time zone Europe/Rome
Primary DNS server 10.149.5.111
Secondary DNS server 10.149.5.112
Primary NTP server 10.149.103.254
Secondary NTP servers N/A
Local domain eu.barilla.net
Number of Virtual Ports 1
RPA 2
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.102.34
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.4
RPA 3
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.102.35
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.5
RPA 1
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.102.33
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.3
RPA 4
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.102.36
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.6
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Target netmask Target subnet
---------------------------------------------------------
10.149.103.254 (default) 0.0.0.0 default
172.31.255.2 255.255.255.0 172.31.255.0
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Cluster Barilla-Roma
----------------------------------------------------
Internal cluster name 0x47ab73f4f3c2c63d
Product Type RPSE
Cluster management (LAN) IPv4 10.149.105.170
Cluster management (LAN) IPv6 N/A
LAN netmask IPv4 255.255.255.0
LAN netmask IPv6 N/A
WAN netmask IP 255.255.255.0
DATA1 netmask N/A
DATA2 netmask N/A
Time zone Europe/Rome
Primary DNS server 10.149.5.111
Secondary DNS server 10.149.5.112
Primary NTP server 10.149.105.254
Secondary NTP servers N/A
Local domain eu.barilla.net
Number of Virtual Ports 1
RPA 2
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.105.28
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A >>
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.14
RPA 3
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.105.29
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.15
RPA 4
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.105.30
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.16
RPA 1
RPA Nic Topology wan is separated
RPA LAN IPv4 10.149.105.27
RPA LAN IPv6 N/A
RPA WAN IP 172.31.255.13
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Target netmask Target subnet
---------------------------------------------------------
10.149.105.254 (default) 0.0.0.0 default
172.31.255.1 255.255.255.0 172.31.255.0
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
Marco
fadliz
153 Posts
1
January 9th, 2017 12:00
Hi Marco,
Since all 8 WAN addresses are on the same subnet, you should not need to configure a GW.
I would first check that the interfaces negotiated correctly w/ the switches/routers interfaces using ethtool which is available in boxmgmt 'ethtool eth0' ( you can have them check that too from the network side). Second, I would check that the MTU setting on the WAN interfaces is consistent with the network MTU. RP's default is 1500.
Then try to do a test ping -I eth0 to see if it's able to reach.
Hope that helps!
Thanks, Zahid
Anonymous
5 Practitioner
5 Practitioner
•
274.2K Posts
0
January 9th, 2017 12:00
Negotiation ( 1Gbps) and MTU (1500) are already checked and correct , thanks
So I must to remove the gateways
172.31.255.2 from cluster Barilla-Milano
172.31.255.1 from cluster Barilla-Milano
With boxmgmt/boxmgmt user
Correct ?
Thanks
Marco
fadliz
153 Posts
0
January 9th, 2017 12:00
I can't see the GWs, but yes (make sure LAN GWs are not impacted). Remove WAN GW and try to ping the same site and then the remote site. It should clear up
Anonymous
5 Practitioner
5 Practitioner
•
274.2K Posts
0
January 10th, 2017 06:00
now is working
thanks Fadliz
fadliz
153 Posts
0
January 10th, 2017 06:00
Great to hear Marco.
Thanks, Z