From: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE) (dmitry_volkov@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 13:49:33 GMT-3
You can do like this:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 bri0 192.168.1.1 200
BTW static routes via interface as well as via neext-hop can't have AD=0
Only connected routes have AD=0
If You have : ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 bri0
You can check distance : show ip route 0.0.0.0 - AD=1
There is no way to put distance "0" for static route:
r5(config)#ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 bri0/0 ?
<1-255> Distance metric for this route
A.B.C.D Forwarding router's address
name Specify name of the next hop
permanent permanent route
tag Set tag for this route
<cr>
There is wonderful book available A.Zinin "Cisco IP routing"
page 243:
"...Dialer maps contain the addresses of remote routers, whereas actual
next-hop addresses used by the forwarding engine are the destination
addresses from packets. So, how should the static routes be configured to
function as expected ? Consider the following rule of thumb.
Use static routes over interfaces only if the corresponding interface is
point-to-point, that is, if encapsulation is HDLC, SLIP, PPP, or LAPB or is
point-to-point subinterface. Otherwise, always configure static routes with
both the output interface and the next-hop address.
What about static routes referencing only intermediate network address ? In
short, try to avoid using them. The reason is that these static routes are
not bound to any interface, rely on intermediate address resolvability, and
thus converge more slowly. They can also create unexpected routing loops.."
Sincerely,
Dmitry Volkov
-----Original Message-----
From: Yakout Esmat [mailto:yesmat@iprimus.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:34 AM
To: kris.keen@aon.com.au
Cc: Groupstudy; nobody@groupstudy.com; Carlos G Mendioroz
Subject: RE: Default route over ISDN
I don't think it is possible too, I haven't seen any documentation where
local interface is used on floating static route.
I have no routers to test it at the moment, but will post the results once I
did that.
-----Original Message-----
From: kris.keen@aon.com.au [mailto:kris.keen@aon.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:42 PM
To: Yakout Esmat
Cc: Groupstudy; nobody@groupstudy.com; Carlos G Mendioroz
Subject: RE: Default route over ISDN
I would doubt that, if you point a static to a connected interface, does
the distance default to 0? Can you override admin distance? like this..
I will mock this up as I'd be intrested to see
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Keen - CCNP, CCDP, CNE
Network Support Specialist - Network Systems
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited
(612) 9253 7272
0404862970
E: Kris.Keen@aon.com.au
"Yakout Esmat"
<yesmat@iprimu To: "Carlos G Mendioroz"
<tron@huapi.ba.ar>
s.com.au> cc: "Groupstudy"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent by: bcc:
nobody@groupst Subject: RE: Default route over
ISDN
udy.com
16/07/2002
04:05 PM
Please respond
to "Yakout
Esmat"
I guess this also might work, only if you have another default route
pointing to different direction, and if this disappears use the floating
one.
But not sure that this is possible "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 bri0 200"
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos G Mendioroz [mailto:tron@huapi.ba.ar]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Yakout Esmat
Cc: Groupstudy
Subject: Re: Default route over ISDN
Well,
as Mas suggested, putting a dialer string works, just tested it.
What I do not understand is your reason for making this an interface
route.
If what you want is that the route is hidden, I guess a floating static
is in order.
Yakout Esmat wrote:
>
> Carlos,
>
> It makes sense, but if I need to hide the default route from routing
table,
> then I have to point to my local bri interface, otherwsie if I point to
next
> hop it will be installed in my routing table.
>
> What you are saying is that if I point to my interface it doesn't work??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos G Mendioroz [mailto:tron@huapi.ba.ar]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:12 AM
> To: Yakout esmat
> Cc: Groupstudy
> Subject: Re: Default route over ISDN
>
> Yakout,
> when you send a packet to an interface (via ip route 0.0.0.0/0 int x)
> somehow the interface has to encapsulate it and send it.
>
> On DDR interfaces that also accounts for knowing where do you have to
> dial to. This is "solved" via maps iif you have a destination IP, but
> in your first case, you don't. Therefore, "encapsulation error".
>
> Does this make sense to you ?
>
> Yakout esmat wrote:
> >
> > Any body aware of this problem..
> >
> > Scenario:
> >
> > 10.1.1.1/24--[R1]------(192.168.1.0/24)-----[R2]----
> > ISDN
> >
> > 1) R2 is configured with a static default route
> >
> > Problem:
> >
> > 1) If the default static route on R2 is pointing to BRI0 interface "ip
> route
> > 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 bri0", R2 can't ping 10.1.1.1 on R1. Getting
> "encapsulation
> > failed" error when debuging ip packets, and R2 can't initiate a dial.
> >
> > 2) If I cahnge the default to point to next hop instead "ip route
0.0.0.0
> > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1", every thing is sweet
> >
> > IOS 12.1, legacy ISDN with single dialer map statement is used, IP
> classless
> > is on...
> >
> > I must be missing some thing.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Yakout
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:32 GMT-3