Very weird dhcp issue

We've started 're-vlanning' our main location here, breaking up depts
into their own vlans.

All seems ok so far, aside from a real doozy.

For the IT vlan, we have one address that will not talk to our web
content mgmt appliance. It's the 2nd address in our assignable pool,
and it doesn't matter if it's dhcp or statically assigned, that address
will not talk to that device.

That is the *only* device that cannot be reached from this particular
address in our dept vlan, every other one works fine.

Any ideas on this?

--
Stevo
  • -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    > and it doesn't matter if it's dhcp or statically assigned, that
    > address


    So.... the title of this thread should actually be 'Very weird non-DHCP
    issue', since your own testing confirms this has nothing to do with DHCP?

    If you do a LAN trace on this machine as well as your web content
    management appliance do you see packets on either side? Both sides? If
    not on both sides but you do on the source (workstation) side see
    packets going out, then get LAN traces after each network device
    (switch, router, firewall, etc.) to see when the packets disappear.
    Feel free to post the LAN traces somewhere with descriptions of IPs,
    ports, and what you should be seeing, if you want to post them somewhere
    for review.

    Good luck.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP4jFPAAoJEF XTK08PnB55aMP/3Rg9u6LX6jFCXGYuex/oXdS
    NZ/liqfCgjyIcykWWeKGgdtm2I7JZOcFiG8YW2le55mcltvCL1VJW 1VGng4kZER
    0f4hjfyQ3CcQ6HIU3RM6VL5U2Pblb80MsEQe0qo0xgtPXipmjsi7Q0xIv9p0wT7A
    7JMkfgM9tfuI5Yro BDLfSIkFWicKuKs1sKpNugKalPuyyRrzWIiznoalIKFshon
    a40ETLJVZmngBYfqfeZL9nPNsFlveFNXrDkdbl2WbaprsHtNnANwZfVUIlc5kOCT
    MknY0GXof4/tk149OVCCLgjEzoRtTIZH0BJTHQwW7ANkWUUNYwi49 Mk46V0oawl
    oe1aA NK9gl2bWXWLCtTro4ERSVMvkcI0OffytrfcBsqdCKg/g3QPMjV3kiVEULI
    xnSTsqFgOl2qO8qGaL6FJtk39ZBnCwqDPtmoNt93OK4hAhWBuAXihc kiQHrwkpO
    O04quZu8qQG6A6qwFDr r QqarFR3kielfvi7H6o5iLfZn/sDhvijGOAknJVctH8
    j8fezki9PMznkcT of2Oe4T99K9fChN2WFSgUKdlpkYSjbkmjPfdbWloou WBjCm
    7hHwnAbKPPgoN8aPPfw9rG9E K/0YW2kt4wRu79BEDvF6eMv0UdDPE1qPuw1ttmm
    jg2zzMZDkgIG39A0P3u7
    = fCy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  • ab sounds like they 'said':

    > So.... the title of this thread should actually be 'Very weird
    > non-DHCP issue', since your own testing confirms this has nothing to
    > do with DHCP?


    So my response to ab's comment is...

    Found the issue on this, our content filtering device was doing dynamic
    routing, and for some addresses, it was routing its reply to the device
    (internal) to its default gateway, which is our ISP
    switch.................GAH!

    --
    Stevo
  • -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Nice fine. Thank-you for posting back your results.

    Ya know... I hate network devices that think they know what the blazes
    they're doing. I wonder if they ever work correctly; I only hear the
    bad stories of course (nature of the job) but seriously, do they ever do
    things without making life painful??

    Good luck.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP7hnlAAoJEF XTK08PnB5nwQP/1zShZP9nTIgXs waahUFmIV
    eXvOqW37zQuLcEnhD935hs791Vh7Xui5fX36yt34oSDFrMHOXuDkf0lVy8cuKYD4
    L7GTMzvxJzzB3BIqfTQ/dhbXXiAdRcawgWpKAf2abadyIQQjAerZ6nIVdozIuaTc
    GWJmEV5K0LUNJ1jNfqeIzMTBV9pbrpksPsRk1o4QuY0PGXTo14q2lRa4Hzii2L3W
    Ltc9e9zxZLJZnjc/SI2j4VricBroTG41z6xP7gz4HGEhRXXrkjgKeMySU18TPbPB
    2njsp9FK83IAXYN/7p8rn7L xqTBjE3OEnuBe1k Gu88RdZjvjv3DrPifyEVlD7
    DvysXoHxQCgI0MdAdJQZpoRaYBAefXntDJbXCXcx3HQnIkLXxPThiPtIiimd677I
    5GRVVshzGO0gURG/Xiq81tMb7Or5cmq1DniCfPBGUQXUn/ZbhhDU7bY5rHUvSSfV
    8XIvNLeJL7chKnG2tXTV7p98Wn6iHvLsAnJzsoNGXs4qpXvnOBRFh3Hepv6 9hdQ
    NkRkqtdqAzO1emL4sfoGobG5BGv85VU5V8N9KL /PAWYzEvhMvY8XP/QyBnFWxH/
    t3fErpT62hz0TJEIgq5B/C3X2tFq0f/OqGKHDnd9LyX wBuPrgWXl7TVn8heECX
    cdXK5ovcoihD4LHgqECC
    =5aRo
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  • -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Nice fine. Thank-you for posting back your results.

    Ya know... I hate network devices that think they know what the blazes
    they're doing. I wonder if they ever work correctly; I only hear the
    bad stories of course (nature of the job) but seriously, do they ever do
    things without making life painful??

    Good luck.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP7hnlAAoJEF XTK08PnB5nwQP/1zShZP9nTIgXs waahUFmIV
    eXvOqW37zQuLcEnhD935hs791Vh7Xui5fX36yt34oSDFrMHOXuDkf0lVy8cuKYD4
    L7GTMzvxJzzB3BIqfTQ/dhbXXiAdRcawgWpKAf2abadyIQQjAerZ6nIVdozIuaTc
    GWJmEV5K0LUNJ1jNfqeIzMTBV9pbrpksPsRk1o4QuY0PGXTo14q2lRa4Hzii2L3W
    Ltc9e9zxZLJZnjc/SI2j4VricBroTG41z6xP7gz4HGEhRXXrkjgKeMySU18TPbPB
    2njsp9FK83IAXYN/7p8rn7L xqTBjE3OEnuBe1k Gu88RdZjvjv3DrPifyEVlD7
    DvysXoHxQCgI0MdAdJQZpoRaYBAefXntDJbXCXcx3HQnIkLXxPThiPtIiimd677I
    5GRVVshzGO0gURG/Xiq81tMb7Or5cmq1DniCfPBGUQXUn/ZbhhDU7bY5rHUvSSfV
    8XIvNLeJL7chKnG2tXTV7p98Wn6iHvLsAnJzsoNGXs4qpXvnOBRFh3Hepv6 9hdQ
    NkRkqtdqAzO1emL4sfoGobG5BGv85VU5V8N9KL /PAWYzEvhMvY8XP/QyBnFWxH/
    t3fErpT62hz0TJEIgq5B/C3X2tFq0f/OqGKHDnd9LyX wBuPrgWXl7TVn8heECX
    cdXK5ovcoihD4LHgqECC
    =5aRo
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  • -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Nice fine. Thank-you for posting back your results.

    Ya know... I hate network devices that think they know what the blazes
    they're doing. I wonder if they ever work correctly; I only hear the
    bad stories of course (nature of the job) but seriously, do they ever do
    things without making life painful??

    Good luck.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP7hnlAAoJEF XTK08PnB5nwQP/1zShZP9nTIgXs waahUFmIV
    eXvOqW37zQuLcEnhD935hs791Vh7Xui5fX36yt34oSDFrMHOXuDkf0lVy8cuKYD4
    L7GTMzvxJzzB3BIqfTQ/dhbXXiAdRcawgWpKAf2abadyIQQjAerZ6nIVdozIuaTc
    GWJmEV5K0LUNJ1jNfqeIzMTBV9pbrpksPsRk1o4QuY0PGXTo14q2lRa4Hzii2L3W
    Ltc9e9zxZLJZnjc/SI2j4VricBroTG41z6xP7gz4HGEhRXXrkjgKeMySU18TPbPB
    2njsp9FK83IAXYN/7p8rn7L xqTBjE3OEnuBe1k Gu88RdZjvjv3DrPifyEVlD7
    DvysXoHxQCgI0MdAdJQZpoRaYBAefXntDJbXCXcx3HQnIkLXxPThiPtIiimd677I
    5GRVVshzGO0gURG/Xiq81tMb7Or5cmq1DniCfPBGUQXUn/ZbhhDU7bY5rHUvSSfV
    8XIvNLeJL7chKnG2tXTV7p98Wn6iHvLsAnJzsoNGXs4qpXvnOBRFh3Hepv6 9hdQ
    NkRkqtdqAzO1emL4sfoGobG5BGv85VU5V8N9KL /PAWYzEvhMvY8XP/QyBnFWxH/
    t3fErpT62hz0TJEIgq5B/C3X2tFq0f/OqGKHDnd9LyX wBuPrgWXl7TVn8heECX
    cdXK5ovcoihD4LHgqECC
    =5aRo
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  • ab sounds like they 'said':

    > Nice fine. Thank-you for posting back your results.
    >
    > Ya know... I hate network devices that think they know what the blazes
    > they're doing. I wonder if they ever work correctly; I only hear the
    > bad stories of course (nature of the job) but seriously, do they ever
    > do things without making life painful??


    So my response to ab's comment is...

    This thing has pretty much caused only headaches.........

    --
    Stevo