Hello, I have a server 2008 r2 with 2 working network adapters: 1- 172.16.0.6 for internal network 2-.100.99.99.84 which is connected to external network Both adapters are busy, and they have many send and receive requests on them. the problem is that every morning, when we check the server, we find out that the server can't ping ip address 172.16.0.5 which is in a tight connection with it. I mean these servers are communication with each other with a high send and receive rate. When I check with tracert command: #tracert 172.16.0.5 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms IRANCODE-DR [100.99.99.84] 2 * * Every day I have to use these commands: # route -p delete 172.16.0.5 mask 255.255.255.255 172.16.0.6 # route -p add 172.16.0.5 mask 255.255.255.255 172.16.0.6 Then it works correctly!!!! my routing table is : =========================================================================== Interface List 12...f4 ce 46 b6 9e 1a ......HP NC382i DP Multifunction Gigabit Server Adapter #2 11...f4 ce 46 b6 9e 18 ......HP NC382i DP Multifunction Gigabit Server Adapter 1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1 13...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter 14...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter #2 15...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface 16...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft 6to4 Adapter =========================================================================== IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 100.99.99.81 100.99.99.84 266 100.99.99.80 255.255.255.248 On-link 100.99.99.84 266 100.99.99.84 255.255.255.255 On-link 100.99.99.84 266 100.99.99.87 255.255.255.255 On-link 100.99.99.84 266 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 172.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.5 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.6 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 172.16.0.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 172.16.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 172.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 100.99.99.84 266 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 100.99.99.84 266 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.16.0.6 1 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.0.6 1 172.16.0.3 255.255.255.255 172.16.0.6 1 172.16.0.2 255.255.255.255 172.16.0.6 1 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.255 172.16.0.6 1 172.16.0.5 255.255.255.255 172.16.0.6 1 172.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 172.16.0.6 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 100.99.99.81 Default =========================================================================== IPv6 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: If Metric Network Destination Gateway 1 306 ::1/128 On-link 16 1010 2002::/16 On-link 16 266 2002:5b63:6354::5b63:6354/128 On-link 1 306 ff00::/8 On-link =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None What's the problem? The primary network adapter is set to the private network adapter(172.16.0.6) in advance networking properties. I've noticed that server 2008 has issues in route time table. But that was for RRAS!!! Can anybody help me out?

Hi Parissa, Thanks for posting here. May I know if there is any specific concern that we set entries for individual hosts in 172.16 subnet ? 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.5 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.6 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 I’d suggest to remove it but keep only entry where to subnet 172.16.0.0/255.255.0.0 and see if this issue will persist. Here is a good article for reference : Source IP address selection on a Multi-Homed Windows Computer http://blogs.technet.com/b/networking/archive/2009/04/25/source-ip-address-selection-on-a-multi-homed-windows-computer.aspx Thanks. Tiger Li Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hi Parissa, Thanks for posting here. May I know if there is any specific concern that we set entries for individual hosts in 172.16 subnet ? 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.5 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.6 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 I’d suggest to remove it but keep only entry where to subnet 172.16.0.0/255.255.0.0 and see if this issue will persist. Here is a good article for reference : Source IP address selection on a Multi-Homed Windows Computer http://blogs.technet.com/b/networking/archive/2009/04/25/source-ip-address-selection-on-a-multi-homed-windows-computer.aspx Thanks. Tiger Li Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hi Parissa, Thanks for posting here. May I know if there is any specific concern that we set entries for individual hosts in 172.16 subnet ? 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.5 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 11 172.16.0.6 255.255.255.255 On-link 172.16.0.6 266 I’d suggest to remove it but keep only entry where to subnet 172.16.0.0/255.255.0.0 and see if this issue will persist. Here is a good article for reference : Source IP address selection on a Multi-Homed Windows Computer http://blogs.technet.com/b/networking/archive/2009/04/25/source-ip-address-selection-on-a-multi-homed-windows-computer.aspx Thanks. Tiger Li Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hi Tiger, Thanks for your reply, I read the article. As it says, the problem is solved in windows server 2008 R2. Besides, I use "ping" command to test. I mean this is a microsoft based program. Does it have the same problem as the article? The route entry "172.16.0.0. mask 255.255.0.0" is entered to the routing table by Windows OS automatically. It doesn't seem to solve the problem if I remove it. Because the packet chooses the longest prefix match in the routing table. But I'll check that and let you know the result. Thanks again Parissa Bakhshi

Hi Tiger, Thanks for your reply, I read the article. As it says, the problem is solved in windows server 2008 R2. Besides, I use "ping" command to test. I mean this is a microsoft based program. Does it have the same problem as the article? The route entry "172.16.0.0. mask 255.255.0.0" is entered to the routing table by Windows OS automatically. It doesn't seem to solve the problem if I remove it. Because the packet chooses the longest prefix match in the routing table. But I'll check that and let you know the result. Thanks again Parissa Bakhshi

Hi Tiger, Thanks for your reply, I read the article. As it says, the problem is solved in windows server 2008 R2. Besides, I use "ping" command to test. I mean this is a microsoft based program. Does it have the same problem as the article? The route entry "172.16.0.0. mask 255.255.0.0" is entered to the routing table by Windows OS automatically. It doesn't seem to solve the problem if I remove it. Because the packet chooses the longest prefix match in the routing table. But I'll check that and let you know the result. Thanks again Parissa Bakhshi

I did that, I have the same problem again. I can't ping 172.16.0.5 but, can ping 172.16.0.1 and other IPs in this range. Help me! We can't use server this way!!!!Or we have to switch back to Windows server 2003!

I did that, I have the same problem again. I can't ping 172.16.0.5 but, can ping 172.16.0.1 and other IPs in this range. Help me! We can't use server this way!!!!Or we have to switch back to Windows server 2003!

I did that, I have the same problem again. I can't ping 172.16.0.5 but, can ping 172.16.0.1 and other IPs in this range. Help me! We can't use server this way!!!!Or we have to switch back to Windows server 2003!

Hi, can you take a sniffer trace while pinging each ip ? and verify the packets ?

Hi, can you take a sniffer trace while pinging each ip ? and verify the packets ?

Hi, can you take a sniffer trace while pinging each ip ? and verify the packets ?

I used "microsoft network monitor" , when pinging, the source MAC address was the address of public NIC not the private NIC

I used "microsoft network monitor" , when pinging, the source MAC address was the address of public NIC not the private NIC

I used "microsoft network monitor" , when pinging, the source MAC address was the address of public NIC not the private NIC

Nobody here to answer me?!!!

Nobody here to answer me?!!!

Nobody here to answer me?!!!

Hi Tiger, Thanks for your reply, I read the article. As it says, the problem is solved in windows server 2008 R2. Besides, I use "ping" command to test. I mean this is a microsoft based program. Does it have the same problem as the article? The route entry "172.16.0.0. mask 255.255.0.0" is entered to the routing table by Windows OS automatically. It doesn't seem to solve the problem if I remove it. Because the packet chooses the longest prefix match in the routing table. But I'll check that and let you know the result. Thanks again Parissa Bakhshi No, ping is not a Microsoft program. It is an IP utility using an IP protocol. It runs on any OS. Bill

Hi Tiger, Thanks for your reply, I read the article. As it says, the problem is solved in windows server 2008 R2. Besides, I use "ping" command to test. I mean this is a microsoft based program. Does it have the same problem as the article? The route entry "172.16.0.0. mask 255.255.0.0" is entered to the routing table by Windows OS automatically. It doesn't seem to solve the problem if I remove it. Because the packet chooses the longest prefix match in the routing table. But I'll check that and let you know the result. Thanks again Parissa Bakhshi No, ping is not a Microsoft program. It is an IP utility using an IP protocol. It runs on any OS. Bill

Hi Tiger, Thanks for your reply, I read the article. As it says, the problem is solved in windows server 2008 R2. Besides, I use "ping" command to test. I mean this is a microsoft based program. Does it have the same problem as the article? The route entry "172.16.0.0. mask 255.255.0.0" is entered to the routing table by Windows OS automatically. It doesn't seem to solve the problem if I remove it. Because the packet chooses the longest prefix match in the routing table. But I'll check that and let you know the result. Thanks again Parissa Bakhshi No, ping is not a Microsoft program. It is an IP utility using an IP protocol. It runs on any OS. Bill