4

I've had a route in Windows Server 2008 R2 RRAS that's been working for a long time, which is 192.168.100.0/24.

The network on the other side of that link recently added a new subnet, 192.168.101.0/24

So, naturally I thought to myself, I would just modify the existing route to the following:

192.168.100.0/23

But no go. Nothing on the new subnet goes anywhere.

But, if I make the following setup:

192.168.101.0/24

Which is effectively the same route as above, just more verbose, works perfectly.

I don't mind having the two routes, but I'd really like to know why it's nessesary. Any ideas?

Mark Henderson
  • 68,316
  • 31
  • 175
  • 255
  • If you look at the route table with `route print` does it show things correctly when you have the `/23` route? Does a traceroute show the traffic trying to leave the correct interface? – Zoredache Dec 12 '11 at 21:25
  • 1
    Thar she blows: `192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 192.168.161.106` - however, I see there is a realllllly old RIP route still hanging around that's for a much smaller range on the `192.168.101.0/24` network which will be taking precedence. Sometimes I just have brain farts all day. – Mark Henderson Dec 12 '11 at 21:51
  • Post that as an answer and I'll give it the checkmark, I removed the RIP listener (forgot it was there), and now she's all good. – Mark Henderson Dec 12 '11 at 21:54

1 Answers1

6

If you look at the route table with route print does it show things correctly when you have the /23 route? Does a traceroute show the traffic trying to leave the correct interface?

Some times what you see in the Windows GUI does not reflect what Windows is actually doing. I find that it is always best to double check from the command line.

Zoredache
  • 128,755
  • 40
  • 271
  • 413
  • This put me on the right track - there were a bunch of old RIP routes that were smaller than the /23 route which were taking precedence. Got rid of the RIP listener and the RIP routes (they were redundant) and everything came good :) – Mark Henderson Dec 12 '11 at 22:42