From: Brian Dennis (bdennis@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Feb 23 2007 - 13:22:23 ART
As you can see the document isn't 100% correct.
--Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP) bdennis@internetworkexpert.com Internetwork Expert, Inc. http://www.InternetworkExpert.com Toll Free: 877-224-8987 Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada) On 2/22/07 11:55 PM, "Dumb Dumb" <dumb4me@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, > > I have a doubt regarding static route. I just went through one > document for which the link is given below. > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094195. > shtml > > As per the above document static routes pointing to next-hop ip > address will have administratice distance of 1 and those pointing to outgoing > interface is having administrativedistance of 0. But this is not case when I > tried to configure. > > I have a directly connected multilink and I am > configuring a static route pointing to this multilink. > > RINCHNLKB-2A-1750#sh > ip int brief > Multilink1 192.168.45.30 YES NVRAM up > up > > RINCHNLKB-2A-1750(config)#ip route 20.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 multilink 1 > RINCHNLKB-2A-1750(config)#^Z > > > RINCHNLKB-2A-1750#sh ip route | include > 20.0.0.0 > 20.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > S 20.0.0.0 is directly > connected, Multilink1 > > > RINCHNLKB-2A-1750#sh ip route 20.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 > Routing entry for 20.0.0.0/24 > Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 > (connected) > Routing Descriptor Blocks: > * directly connected, via > Multilink1 > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 > > Now you can see > that AD for this route is 1 instead of 0. Can somebody throw some light into > this ? > > Thanks, > Pete > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 07:38:48 ART