From: Chuck Church (ccie8776@rochester.rr.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 23:29:26 GMT-3
I'm thinking I learned this next hop IP versus exit interface difference
somewhere in my CCNP studies. I guess I never really tested it though.
Possibly the 11.x CCNP courseware was incorrect...
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Dennis" <brian@labforge.com>
To: "'Mike Williams'" <ccie2be@swbell.net>; "'Chuck Church'"
<ccie8776@rochester.rr.com>; "'Roberts, Larry'"
<Larry.Roberts@expanets.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: Does anyone know if this is possible?
> You'll find the same results even as far back as IOS 11.1. I didn't test
> any further back (11.0, 10.3, etc).
>
> 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 2:47 PM
> To: 'Chuck Church'; 'Brian Dennis'; 'Roberts, Larry';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
> Well, I talked to my brother-in-law, who also studied the same
> materials, etc as I did, and he recalled the same thing.... I did
> verify as Dennis did, and it shows up with an AD of 1, but I also agree
> with Chuck that this may be a newer IOS "feature". I didn't have time
> while @ work, but we have a boatload of 2500's with 11.x IOS so I can
> try it there too.... I even remember part of the 'theory' behind this
> was that making a static route out of an interface was more 'reliable'
> than sending to a next-hop IP (which may or may not be up even if the
> local interface it up), so they made statics using exit interface an AD
> of 0, and statics using next-hop an AD of 1. Fun fun......
>
> Mike W.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Church [mailto:ccie8776@rochester.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:26 PM
> To: Brian Dennis; 'Mike Williams'; 'Roberts, Larry';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Does anyone know if this is possible?
>
>
> 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