HPE Community read-only access December 15, 2018
This is a maintenance upgrade. You will be able to read articles and posts, but not post or reply.
Hours:
Dec 15, 4:00 am to 10:00 am UTC
Dec 14, 10:00 pm CST to Dec 15, 4:00 am CST
Dec 14, 8:00 pm PST to Dec 15, 2:00 am PST
Operating System - OpenVMS
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Oddities with TCPIP$ROUTE (error accessing routes database)

 
Brian Reiter
Valued Contributor

Oddities with TCPIP$ROUTE (error accessing routes database)

Hello folks,

 

We have a dual node RX2800 cluster (OpenVMS 8-4 Update 7, TCPIP 5-7 ECO 3). One of our customers has a small numbe of PCs etc. located in another building connected via some 3rd party comms produc (pair of routes over some kind of ADSL link).

 

There is a single address alias allocated to the cluster which can be seen via the routers, this alias will move from node to node following the software which talks to the remote equipment. The problem I have is that information in the permanent routes database does not seem to be used, access to the remote equipment is only possible once a dynanic route has been entered.

 

For example the

 

The command TCPIP SHO ROUTER/PERM  shows:

 

                             PERMANENT

Type           Destination                           Gateway

PH    192.168.1.1                           193.116.105.248
PH    192.168.1.2                           193.116.105.248

But neither address (192.168.1.1) can be pinged (no route), although the gateway address can. Doing a show route on one of the individual addresses gives:

 

tcpip sho route 192.168.1.1
%TCPIP-E-ROUTEERROR, error accessing routes database (TCPIP$ROUTE)
-TCPIP-W-NORECORD, information not found

Logicals such as the TCPIP$INET_HOST etc. are all populated, the routes file is as follows:

 

dir tcpip$route/sec

Directory SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]

TCPIP$ROUTE.DAT;1    [1,1]                            (RWED,RWED,RE,RE)

 

As soon as a dynamic route is entered full connectivity is restored.

 

The hosts in the cluster have their own system disks.

 

Any thoughts? In the past I've seen a number of posts regarding these kind of issues but the fixes seem to be unclear.

 

Regards

 

Brian