Re: Confusing Route issue.
- From: "Ron Lowe" <ron-msng@{d.e.l.e.t.e}lowe-family.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:50:53 -0000
Curious.
I think you need to do some testing to see what's taking the time.
Is it slow throughout the whole transfer, or is it possibly an initial delay
during name resolution?
Could it be that your PC is trying name resolution for the curtomer server
on a local DNS or WINS server and this is causing a problem?
Do the ping times to the customer site look reasonable?
Then, I'd want to test simple TCP/IP speed between the sites using say FTP
or HTTP, to take windows file sharing protocols ( SMB) out of the equation.
Incidentally, your route table shows routes to 4 customer subnets via the
router at 172.16.0.253
None of these routes are listed as Persistent Routes.
Do you run a batch file to do the 'Route Adds' every time the machine boots?
That's OK, but a bit clumsy where you could add the routes with the
Persistent flag.
--
Best Regards
Ron Lowe
"BerkHolz, Steven" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ulBdRexMGHA.3720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XP Client.
DHCP address assigned address.
Default Gateway set to our corporate router.
Additional routes added for access to a customer's servers pointing at the
router that connects to our customer.
Router for customer is on our internal LAN. (packets to them should not
hit our corp. router)
We are set up this way because our corp. router would slow down customer
data. (corp router is 100mb., customer router is 1Gb. customer link is 1Gb
fiber)
Set up as listed at the top, our traffic to our customer was slower than
it should have been.
For testing, I put the customer router as the default gateway.
Data transfer times were cut in half.
My assumption that there were some IP references that were being called
that we did not have routes entered for.
I ran NETMON in both configs and saw no differences.
There were only three IP addresses referenced (not including the
broadcasts that were recorded).
Two at the customer and one for a fileserver on the same LAN. (needed by
the app.)
Both customer IPs went directly to the customer router in both setups.
My assumption is that the routing is working properly in both configs, but
that XP somehow slows the data when using routes other than the default
gateway.
Route Print ref:
Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface
Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.0.254 172.16.2.42
25
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
130.170.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.16.0.253 172.16.2.42 1
130.175.187.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.0.253 172.16.2.42 1
148.98.184.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.0.253 172.16.2.42 1
172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.16.2.42 172.16.2.42
25
172.16.2.42 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
25
172.16.255.255 255.255.255.255 172.16.2.42 172.16.2.42
25
204.230.144.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.0.253 172.16.2.42 1
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 172.16.2.42 172.16.2.42
25
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 172.16.2.42 3 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 172.16.2.42 172.16.2.42 1
Default Gateway: 172.16.0.254
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:
None
172.16.0.254 = corp. router
172.16.0.253 = cust. router
Please advise if anyone knows why a static route would be any slower.
--
--
Steven
May you have the peace and freedom that come from abandoning all hope of
having a better past.
--- - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - --- - ------
- - --- - - -- - - - -- - - -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Confusing Route issue.
- From: BerkHolz, Steven
- Re: Confusing Route issue.
- References:
- Confusing Route issue.
- From: BerkHolz, Steven
- Confusing Route issue.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can't connect to \\hostname but can connect with \\hostname\sharename
- Next by Date: Re: Any Way Around the New Default Behavior of XP SP2 + NTLM "Failback"
- Previous by thread: Confusing Route issue.
- Next by thread: Re: Confusing Route issue.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
