Router sends packets out wrong interface

[trane.m]

Hi all,
A section of my lab:

I'm on the windows server, trying to get it to connect to the internet via the routers (R1) g0/0 interface. i give it the IP of 10.1.50.5/24 and i send a ping to 10.1.1.1. In my wireshark captures, i can see the packet is going all the way to R1, but also that R1 chooses to send the ICMP reply out it's g0/2 interface. In fact, i can see that traffic to all my VLANs are preferred out of the g0/2 interface. How do i make it send traffic specifically for vlans 10, 20 and 50 out it's g0/1 interface?

R1 has learned routes to all the SVI's via OSPF. I have created SVI's on both Core1 (10.1.XX.1) and Core2 (10.1.XX.2) but for some reason R1 prefers Core2 for all SVI routes. R1's route table:

I have tried creating a new route to 10.1.50.0/24 via g0/2 with a higher AD, but of course that doesn't work, when it already has a better route. I thought about creating another route out of it's g0/1 interface with a lower AD, but that would just result in it sending all traffic out of it's g0/1 interface. The same with OSPF cost.

I hope someone can point me in the correct direction.

[balaji.bandi · Accepted solution]

because you have not read my reply before I posted :

10.1.50.0 is behind CORE1 only,  it needs to learn from CORE1 only since that is the only path here.

if you looking to build that topology. below marked 

Core1 - G 2/3 - convert in to Layer 2 trunk

SRVACC1 - g0/0 covert in to layer 2 trunk

SRVACC1 - g0/1 - make access port vlan 50 (make sure vlan 50 created)

CORE1

config t

interface vlan50

no shutdown

!

CORE2

!

no interface vlan50

shutdown

!

Test :

from Server 10.1.50.5 gateway 10.1.50.1

ping 10.1.50.1 - if that works, then 10.1.1.1 should work as expected

still issue post new show from all device to review.

[MHM Cisco World]

if he config Core with SVI and allow VLAN 50 through trunk interconnect both Core then sure traffic can pass from Core1 to Core2 then to router. 
this protect his network if Core-Router link failed. 

[trane.m]

Can you elaborate on that?

[MHM Cisco World]

If remove svi from second core, eliminate the need of second core.

So for me that dont optimal design.

I share with you the my view before.

[trane.m]

If i convert core 1's g2/3 and SRVACC1's g0/0 and g0/1 interfaces to layer 2, then SRVACC1 can't participate in OSPF, correct?
So i would have to create static route for the server to be able to reach internet?

If it's possible, i would like R1, Core1, Core2 and SRVACC1 to participate in OSPF, so all routes are automatically advertised. Can that be done?

[balaji.bandi]

f i convert core 1's g2/3 and SRVACC1's g0/0 and g0/1 interfaces to layer 2, then SRVACC1 can't participate in OSPF, correct?
So i would have to create static route for the server to be able to reach internet?  - YES that is correct.

If it's possible, i would like R1, Core1, Core2 and SRVACC1 to participate in OSPF, so all routes are automatically advertised. Can that be done? - in this case you can not create HSRP/GLBP you looking to do on the cores.

So you need to decide how you looking to to, what is the goal.