From: Swan, Jay (jswan@sugf.com)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2008 - 19:05:41 ARST
This is actually not true. A lot of people seem to think so, however; I
think it goes back to an error in one of Cisco's early routing classes
that has been reprinted in a lot of books.
The AD of static routes to physical interfaces is also 1:
R2#sh run | i ip route
ip route 1.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
R2#sh ip route 1.1.1.0
Routing entry for 1.1.1.0/24
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via FastEthernet0/0
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Denise/Fishburne User
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:48 PM
To: Germany; 'Larry'; 'Joseph Brunner'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Route preference
Static pointing to a physical interface instead of a next hop is
actually an
AD of 0.
On 2/6/08 12:21 AM, "Germany" <ccie.gergonza@gmail.com> wrote:
> Default AD for static is 1, 0 is for connected... Hey Robert, when you
> labbed it, did you try Josephs scenario (establishing the ospf route
first,
> then setting the static one)?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:47 ARST