From: Arun Arumuganainar (aarumuga@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue May 16 2006 - 11:46:57 ART
Hi Brian ,
I think there is catch here . Under this circumstances you will two routes
1) One is a connected route for 172.242.246.208/29
2) Second route will for 170.242.246.212/32
Pls. note : Connected route might be having least admin distance but in case
you have more specific route you will still find the route getting installed
in the Routing table .
Thanks and Regards
Arun
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
To: "D R" <deep.ratan@gmail.com>; "Mark Lasarko" <mlasarko@co.ba.md.us>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: ip route to itself - rephrased
> If 170.242.246.212 is directly connected you can't override it
> with a static route. The lowest administrative distance a static route
> can have is 1. A connected interface has an administrative distance of
> 0. Look at the output of the "debug ip routing" after you install the
> route and see what the router says.
>
> HTH,
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> 24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
> Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of D
> > R
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:01 AM
> > To: Mark Lasarko
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: ip route to itself - rephrased
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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