Simple Layer 3 test making me feel stupid
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:38 am
I thought I understood layer 3 routing just fine, as well as softethers implementation of it, but I must have done something wrong. Quick breakdown:
My network: 192.168.0 subnet
Coworker network: 192.168.1 subnet
Hub 1 on my windows 7 based softether hyperv virtual server is for my 192.168.0 subnet activity and it works wonderfully bridged through a hyperv virtual NIC in promiscuous mode.
Hub 2 i recently made for my coworker to cascade to from his server and his network is 192.168.1 subnet
I have created a layer 3 virtual switch with two interfaces. 192.168.0.254 for my subnets interface on hub1, 192.168.1.254 for my coworkers network on hub 2.
The cascade from his server to hub 2 is successful. On that session I can see the ip table with his 192.168.1 subnet addresses.
I have set a static route on my tp link router for 192.168.1.0 subnet with 192.168.0.254 as the next hop.
I can ping the 192.168.0.254 and 192.168.1.254 interfaces from a machine on my network, so i assumed the layer 3 virtual switch was working.
Tracert will read 1: 192.168.0.50 (my router) 2: 192.168.0.254 3: 192.168.1.254 if i run it against 192.168.1.254
If I try to ping any of the ip's of any active machines on my coworkers network they will fail. I cant seem to be able to ping anything that resides on his physical network, only the interface on my layer 3 virtual switch. I keep reading through the documentation for using softethers layer 3 routing and I seem to be following it to a T.
Does anyone see any issues with how I have configured my virtual layer 3 switch and tp link router? At this point I am thinking my coworkers local bridge on his server is where my problem lies.
Does the fact that I can ping the 192.168.1.254 interface effectively prove that I have a functioning layer 3 route to the 192.168.1.0/24 network assuming that there is one within the scope of the hubs involved with my layer 3 virtual switch? I feel like it does but perhaps I am wrong.
My network: 192.168.0 subnet
Coworker network: 192.168.1 subnet
Hub 1 on my windows 7 based softether hyperv virtual server is for my 192.168.0 subnet activity and it works wonderfully bridged through a hyperv virtual NIC in promiscuous mode.
Hub 2 i recently made for my coworker to cascade to from his server and his network is 192.168.1 subnet
I have created a layer 3 virtual switch with two interfaces. 192.168.0.254 for my subnets interface on hub1, 192.168.1.254 for my coworkers network on hub 2.
The cascade from his server to hub 2 is successful. On that session I can see the ip table with his 192.168.1 subnet addresses.
I have set a static route on my tp link router for 192.168.1.0 subnet with 192.168.0.254 as the next hop.
I can ping the 192.168.0.254 and 192.168.1.254 interfaces from a machine on my network, so i assumed the layer 3 virtual switch was working.
Tracert will read 1: 192.168.0.50 (my router) 2: 192.168.0.254 3: 192.168.1.254 if i run it against 192.168.1.254
If I try to ping any of the ip's of any active machines on my coworkers network they will fail. I cant seem to be able to ping anything that resides on his physical network, only the interface on my layer 3 virtual switch. I keep reading through the documentation for using softethers layer 3 routing and I seem to be following it to a T.
Does anyone see any issues with how I have configured my virtual layer 3 switch and tp link router? At this point I am thinking my coworkers local bridge on his server is where my problem lies.
Does the fact that I can ping the 192.168.1.254 interface effectively prove that I have a functioning layer 3 route to the 192.168.1.0/24 network assuming that there is one within the scope of the hubs involved with my layer 3 virtual switch? I feel like it does but perhaps I am wrong.