routing or bridging problem with Sangoma and Linux box

RouterOS General
1

I've got a customer with three locations. They did have three linux boxes running RH 9. Two of the machines have an ethernet card and a Sangoma T1 interface. The middle machine has two Sangoma T1 interfaces and an ethernet interface.

The odd part is, is that the linux systems have the sangoma's set in a PtP and using the same IP as the ethernet cards. Because the middle linux box died I got called in to fix the problem. With no backup and little time (and we didn't install the linux boxes) I dropped in a mikrotik box. But to get it to work properly I've got the following setup.

ADDRESS NETWORK BROADCAST INTERFACE

0 192.168.2.1/24 192.168.2.0 192.168.2.255 local
1 192.168.2.1/24 192.168.2.0 192.168.2.255 sangoma1
2 192.168.2.1/24 192.168.2.0 192.168.2.255 sangoma2

DST-ADDRESS G GATEWAY DISTANCE INTERFACE

0 S 0.0.0.0/0 r 192.168.2.1 1 sangoma2
1 S 192.168.3.0/24 r 192.168.2.1 1 sangoma1
2 DC 192.168.2.0/24 r 0.0.0.0 0 sangoma1
3 DC 192.168.2.0/24 r 0.0.0.0 0 sangoma2
4 DC 192.168.2.0/24 r 0.0.0.0 0 local


The above works.... HOWEVER... it is a matter of luck that the interfaces get set as the CANNOT be set from /ip route. Therefore if the machine reboots I'd have to jack with it for a while till the routes fall to the correct interfaces.

One solution is to replace everything with MT's and install proper routes. I don't see them going for this. I'd just like to leave the MT if I can be assured that it won't munge the routing table.


thanks,,
Tom Dodge
dodge@disisit.com

2

why do you have the same IP address assigned to three interfaces.. I think you need to change that so you can define your routeing table correctly..

like if 192.168.3.0/24 hangs off of sangoma1, then the interface sangoma1 should have an IP address within that subnet…

It would help to see the routing tables of all routes (MT, and linux)…

It sounds like the person that install/configured/designed the network was trying to bridge… ?? i dunno tho i need more info.

3

As stated it looks like they setup some sort of bridge. The only way I could get the MT to work with the existing setup was to give all interfaces the same IP. The point is that MT allows us to do this, but doesn’t allow us to modify the ‘interface’ in the /ip route section.

Good news the customer wants us to replace all with MT boxes so we can correct the routing issues.

thanks,
tom