From: Erick Bergquist (ebergquist@ameritech.net)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 03:29:48 GMT-3
Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I since have done the same. Was
not thinking clearly when I ran into problem.
--- Tom Lijnse <Tom.Lijnse@globalknowledge.nl> wrote:
> Hi Erick,
>
> It looks like EIGRP is treating this route as a
> directly connected
> route, since it's a static route pointing to an
> interface.
>
> I quickly configured a similar setup:
>
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0
> !
> router eigrp 1
> network 10.0.0.0
> !
> ip route 10.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 Null0
>
> And I am getting the same result as you are getting.
> The static is
> advertised via EIGRP even though redistribution of
> statics is not
> enabled:
>
> R2#sh ip route 10.2.2.2
> Routing entry for 10.2.2.2/32
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
> (connected)
> Redistributing via eigrp 1
> Advertised by eigrp 1
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * directly connected, via Null0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> If I configure a static pointing to another
> interface (Ethernet 0) I get
> similar behavior:
>
> R2(config)#ip route 10.3.3.3 255.255.255.255 e0
>
> R2#sh ip route 10.3.3.3
> Routing entry for 10.3.3.3/32
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
> (connected)
> Redistributing via eigrp 1
> Advertised by eigrp 1
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * directly connected, via Ethernet0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> On the other hand, if I configure a static pointing
> to a next-hop
> instead of an interface it is not treated as a
> connected interface and
> therefore not advertised. (As is to be expected):
>
> R2(config)#ip route 10.4.4.4 255.255.255.255
> 10.10.10.1
>
> R2#sh ip route 10.4.4.4
> Routing entry for 10.4.4.4/32
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 10.10.10.1
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> So to come back to your original question: How do
> you turn this off?
> The answer lies in how you configure the network
> statements under EIGRP.
> As you can see I used a blanket 'network 10.0.0.0'
> statement, which not
> only covers my Ethernet interface (10.10.10.2/24),
> but also the static
> routes that I just created. If I reconfigure my
> network statement to
> match only my Ethernet interface IP address it
> should stop advertising
> the statics, since they're not covered by a network
> statement anymore.
>
> R2(config)#router eigrp 1
> R2(config-router)#no network 10.0.0.0
> R2(config-router)#network 10.10.10.2 0.0.0.0
>
> R2#sh ip route 10.2.2.2
> Routing entry for 10.2.2.2/32
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
> (connected)
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * directly connected, via Null0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> And as you can see now the static to Null 0 is not
> advertised via EIGRP
> any longer.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Lijnse
>
> CCIE #11031
> Global Knowledge
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Erick Bergquist
> Sent: maandag 4 april 2005 7:31
> To: Brant I. Stevens; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Static host routes to null0
> automatically insert into EIGRP
>
> I should have been more clear, I am adding a static
> host route and it is getting put into EIGRP
> automatically. I know static routes are frowned upon
> in certain places but this isn't for that certain
> place. Just general know-how and why.
>
> Just trying to figure out why it is. Have searched
> and
> looked at various cisco docs.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --- "Brant I. Stevens" <branto@branto.com> wrote:
> > If you have an interface summary configured, a
> null0
> > route is added. You
> > don't have to worry about that as far as points
> are
> > considered, so long as
> > YOU aren't the one typing 'ip route x.x.x.x
> y.y.y.y
> > NULL0'
> >
> > HTH,
> > Brant
> >
> >
> > On 04/03/2005 11:33 PM, "Erick Bergquist"
> > <ebergquist@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Anyone have a idea why a static route for a host
> > > address to null0 gets automatically
> redistributed
> > into
> > > EIGRP? I have no redist static under the router
> > eigrp
> > > process and have tried distribute-list and the
> > route
> > > still shows in the eigrp topology table on the
> > same
> > > router.
> > >
> > > Any way to kill this behavior?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Erick
> > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:55 GMT-3