From: Stephen C. Feldberg (scfeldberg@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 14:03:44 GMT-3
I would argue that an OSPF/EIGRP summary route is more of a "static
violation" than the examples you mentioned seeing as they both install
routes to null0. Default information-originate does not, to my knowledge,
affect the local routing table- it is the neighbors that learn a 0.0.0.0/0
back to the advertising router.
I feel that the improper use of ip-default network, which creates a static
route in the configuration, is a trap that will be intentionally laid in the
CCIE lab. Anyone expecting to emerge with a number should know how to
overcome this issue.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAN DORTON" <DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Opinions on static routes defined.
> In some of my practice labs I have of course seen the phrase do not use
> any statics to accomplish goals in this lab unless specifically
> specified to do so.
>
> In some of these instances the only way to make some of it work is to
> either use the IP DEFAULT-NETWORK command ( Which of course creates a
> static route, or use the DEFAULT-INFORMATION ORIGINATE ( Which is also
> sort of a static injected type route.).
>
> In my mind these commands both fall in the category of statics, but
> then in some instance I see no other way. ( Also some of the instances
> could be fixed with protocol redistribution, but this is explicitly
> denied as well. )
>
> I am just curious about how everyone else feels on this subject.
>
> Please no breaking the NDA as this is not my intent of the question. I
> am only wanting personal feeling responses.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:43 GMT-3