« Back to Technical Questions

Unable to add route table on sub-interface with AXP 1.6.1

Combination View Flat View Tree View
Hello
 
We have upgraded our AXP to 1.6.1. But while restoring our earlier configuration ( with AXP 1.1.5) we get the following errors:
 
hil-axp2(config)# int eth1
hil-axp2(config-interface)# ip route table 10
unconfigure connected route first
 
Earlier configuration with 1.1.5
 
interface eth1
 ip address 192.168.2.115 255.255.255.240
 ip route table 10
 exit
ip route table 10 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.117
 
Now configuration with 1.6.1
 
interface eth1
 ip address 192.168.2.116 255.255.255.240
 exit
 
ip route table 10 192.168.2.112 255.255.255.240 0.0.0.0 interface eth1 ( This was added by the OS)
ip route table 10 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.117
 
 
Thanks
 
Ashish

Hi Ashish,

I have a few questions.

1. AXP 1.6.1 requires IOS releases 12.4(24)T2 or 15.0(1)M and above. What IOS release are you using on the router?

2. Are you seeing this issue occur among all service modules or just one?

3. What were the steps taken to restore the previous service module configuration?

Thanks,

Brett

Brett



1. We are running 12.4(24)T

2. We tested this only on one service module in our lab

3. Copy tftp: runn:



Regards



Ashish



From: Cisco Developer Community Forums [mailto:cdicuser@developer.cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 3:27 PM
To: cdicuser@developer.cisco.com
Subject: New Message from Brett Tiller in Application eXtension Platform (AXP) - Technical Questions: RE: Unable to add route table on sub-interface with AXP 1.6.1



Brett Tiller has created a new message in the forum "Technical Questions":

--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ashish,

I have a few questions.

1. AXP 1.6.1 requires IOS releases 12.4(24)T2 or 15.0(1)M and above. What IOS release are you using on the router?

2. Are you seeing this issue occur among all service modules or just one?

3. What were the steps taken to restore the previous service module configuration?

Thanks,

Brett
--
To respond to this post, please click the following link:

<http://developer.cisco.com/web/axp/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/4013914>

or simply reply to this email.

Ashish,

Are you not able to configure the service module so that packets flow properly on AXP 1.6.1? I understand that you're saying that the configuration is being changed, and I will test that in my lab; but I'm wondering if you already found a workaround for this issue by reconfiguring the service module or if you are stuck.

Thanks,

Brett

Brett



We are able to configure the module with errors but the packets flow properly. The issue is that our provisioning tools may have issues when they see these errors.



Regards



Ashish



From: Cisco Developer Community Forums [mailto:cdicuser@developer.cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:40 PM
To: cdicuser@developer.cisco.com
Subject: New Message from Brett Tiller in Application eXtension Platform (AXP) - Technical Questions: RE: New Message from Brett Tiller in Application eXtension Platform (AXP) -



Brett Tiller has created a new message in the forum "Technical Questions":

--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashish,

Are you not able to configure the service module so that packets flow properly on AXP 1.6.1? I understand that you're saying that the configuration is being changed, and I will test that in my lab; but I'm wondering if you already found a workaround for this issue by reconfiguring the service module or if you are stuck.

Thanks,

Brett
--
To respond to this post, please click the following link:

<http://developer.cisco.com/web/axp/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/4020859>

or simply reply to this email.

Ashish,

I've checked with our engineering team. The command "ip route table <table number>" as entered within an interface on the service module was deprecated in AXP release 1.5.1. Now when this command is entered the system dynamically removes the command and replaces it with the expected command at the global level which is why you are seeing the new command appear. We should have included this change in our documentation and apologize for not doing so. You will need to modify your provisioning scripts to reflect this change.

Thanks,

Brett