From: Chuck Church (ccie8776@rochester.rr.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 16:26:14 GMT-3
I thought Mike was correct when he wrote that. But then I looked on CCO and
didn't see that caveat there anymore. Either Mike and I both read and
studied the same wrong info, or maybe Cisco changed it in 12.x? Guess I'll
check the 11.3 docs.
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Dennis" <brian@labforge.com>
To: "'Mike Williams'" <ccie2be@swbell.net>; "'Roberts, Larry'"
<Larry.Roberts@expanets.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:33 AM
Subject: RE: Does anyone know if this is possible?
> Mike,
> Are you sure a static route pointing to an interface has a distance of 0
> and a static route pointing to an IP address has a distance of 1? See
> below.
>
> ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 172.16.2.1
> ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 Ethernet0
>
> Rack4R4#sho ip route 2.2.2.2
> Routing entry for 2.2.2.2/32
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 172.16.2.1
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> directly connected, via Ethernet0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> Rack4R4#conf t
> Rack4R4(config)#ip route 5.5.5.5 255.255.255.255 e0
> Rack4R4(config)#^Z
> Rack4R4#sho ip rout 5.5.5.5
> Routing entry for 5.5.5.5/32
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * directly connected, via Ethernet0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> Rack4R4#
>
> Looks like it has a distance of 1 to me ;-)
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP Dial/Security)
> brian@labforge.com
> http://www.labforge.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Mike Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:34 AM
> To: 'Roberts, Larry'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
> That's only partially correct. There are 2 kinds of static routes: One
> that points to next hop L3 address which have an AD of 1, or one that
> points out the exit interface which have an AD of 0.
>
> But I'm in agreement with you in that I can't understand a reason why
> you'd want (need) to do this, unless your Dilbert-esque upper management
> requires it because they read about it in some industry magazine or
> something... LOL
>
> Mike W.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Roberts, Larry
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:18 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
>
> A static route has an AD of 1. A directly connected interface has a AD
> of 0, so the directly connected interface would always win.
>
> I am curious as to why you would want to do this as well. I can't fathom
> a reason, so I'm sure that some Sr. Exec. Has requested you do this :)
>
> Thanks
>
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cassidy D. Smith [mailto:csmith@plannetconsulting.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:30 PM
> To: 'Jerry'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
>
> Can you explain WHY you need to do this? There may be some tricks we
> can do with host routes and policy routing. However understanding the
> problem may result in a more elegant and optimal solution. Like NAT or
> ICMP redirects. So if you can give us the "play by play" start with
> where a packet will be sourced and where it's ultimate destination is.
>
>
> Cassidy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Jerry
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:58 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I need to put a static route into an 8540, however it's next
> hop ip address is in the same network
> I am routing to. Example -- ip route 198.64.10.0 255.255.255.0
> 198.64.10.1 Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
>
> Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:35 GMT-3