From: Mark Lasarko (mlasarko@co.ba.md.us)
Date: Mon May 15 2006 - 13:54:52 ART
I understand, theoretically studying :)
From the perspective of "Bank LAN Connection" router...
I would say the second static route statement:
ip route 170.242.246.212 255.255.255.255 170.242.246.212
Will make both the .73 and .212 addresses "unroutable"
on the "Bank_LAN_Rt"
The route statements on "Bank_LAN_Router" will make it
so the .212 (FW) device never sees a packet for these 'nets.
(Packets originated on the "Bank_LAN_Rt")
On the far side (Packets originating from the FW)
You will not get a reply from "Bank_LAN_Rt"
They will make it to the other side, but cannot return.
So from the FW it is a one-way-dead-end;
Packets traverse the link but do not come back
On the Bank_LAN_Rt;
Packets never make it out of the interface
Once you take that second statement away:
no ip route 170.242.246.212 255.255.255.255 170.242.246.212
Then everything should flow nicely to .212, .73, etc...
So my answer is:
D) Other
BTW - I misread your initial post;
I thought you had 10.10.10.10 assigned - my bad!
Pretty sure the above is accurate - follows routing logic.
~M
>>> "D R" <deep.ratan@gmail.com> 05/15/06 12:00 PM >>>
Yeah of course I've tried it. The router accepts the command. It's a 2600
series router running 12.1(19).
Rephrase:
ip route 170.242.246.73 255.255.255.255 170.242.246.212*
ip route 170.242.246.212 255.255.255.255 170.242.246.212*
interface FastEthernet0/1
description Bank LAN Connection
ip address 170.242.246.210 255.255.255.248
speed 100
full-duplex
170.242.246.212 is a firewall directly connected to fa0/1.
Will the command in* bold*:
A) cause traffic intended for 170.242.246.73 to go into a black hole?
B) cause traffic returning from 170.242.246.212 to go into a loop?
C) have no effect, traffic intended for 170.242.246.73 will go out FA0/1 as
per normal routing process
D) other
Again, don't question the validity/purpose/legitimacy of the command. I'm
interested to know what effect it has.
thanks very much, DR
On 5/15/06, Mark Lasarko <mlasarko@co.ba.md.us> wrote:
>
> ? Have you actually tried this...
> AFAIK the router should bark at you :(
> "%Invalid next hop address" or similar message.
> ~M
>
>
> >>> "D R" <deep.ratan@gmail.com> 05/15/06 8:38 AM >>>
> Gents, Rudimentary question:
>
> FA0/1 is configured with 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0 and is up/up.
>
> in global config mode:
>
> ip route 10.10.10.10 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.10
>
> The static route config above will:
>
> A) cause a routing loop
> B) have no effect
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:21 ART