From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2008 - 18:37:12 ARST
I love trivia too dude. I run the board in Jeopardy when its world
geography, us history, world history, world leaders, the continents,
mountains, science, or any Man Category. English literature? Well, I keep my
mouth shut.
My record is 10 nights or so final jeopardy's in a row... so in the honor of
trivia, here's a 12.0(7) circa 1999 (with a LONG LONG uptime) and the static
route to an interface...
LIC_QWEST#sh vers
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) C2600 Software (C2600-IS-M), Version 12.0(7)T, RELEASE SOFTWARE
(fc2)
Copyright (c) 1986-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 07-Dec-99 02:21 by phanguye
Image text-base: 0x80008088, data-base: 0x80C524F8
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.1(3r)T2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
LIC_QWEST uptime is 5 years, 33 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 18 minutes
System returned to ROM by power-on
System restarted at 18:31:10 EDT Tue Jun 18 2002
System image file is "flash:c2600-is-mz.120-7.T.bin"
cisco 2621 (MPC860) processor (revision 0x600) with 53248K/12288K bytes of
memory.
Processor board ID JAD052909RV (2392359964)
M860 processor: part number 0, mask 49
Bridging software.
X.25 software, Version 3.0.0.
2 FastEthernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s)
1 Serial network interface(s)
32K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
16384K bytes of processor board System flash (Read/Write)
Configuration register is 0x2102
LIC_QWEST(config)#ip route 209.10.10.1 255.255.255.255 s0/0
LIC_QWEST(config)#exit
LIC_QWEST#sh ip route 209.10.10.1
Routing entry for 209.10.10.1/32
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Serial0/0
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
-----Original Message-----
From: Swan, Jay [mailto:jswan@sugf.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:37 AM
To: dara tomar; Denise/Fishburne User
Cc: Germany; Larry; Joseph Brunner; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Route preference
I would be curious to know what IOS this changed in, if true. I got in a
geek debate with someone about this some years ago when teaching CCNP
courses, and I think we tested back to 12.0, and the AD was always 1 for
both formats. Trivia I know, but I'm a sucker for trivia. Anybody got
any really old code versions sitting around?
Jay
#17783
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
dara tomar
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:31 AM
To: Denise/Fishburne User
Cc: Germany; Larry; Joseph Brunner; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Route preference
*Ya,
it used to be but recent version of IOS have resolved this issue.
example:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial 0/0
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 172.16.0.1
.......... both routes have identical administrative distance:
POP#show ip route 0.0.0.0
Routing entry for 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0, supernet
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected), candidate default
path
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Serial0/0
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
POP#show ip route 10.0.0.0
Routing entry for 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 172.16.0.1
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1*
*Regards,
Dara
*On Feb 7, 2008 8:18 AM, Denise/Fishburne User <dfishbur@cisco.com>
wrote:
> 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)?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> > Larry
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:21 AM
> > To: Joseph Brunner
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Route preference
> >
> > Only the static route would be put into the table as its default ad
= 0:
> >
> > r1#show ip route 150.1.3.3
> > Routing entry for 150.1.3.3/32
> > Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 65, type intra area
> > Last update from 150.1.13.3 on Serial1/1, 00:00:26 ago
> > Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> > 150.1.13.3, from 150.1.3.3, 00:00:26 ago, via Serial1/1
> > Route metric is 65, traffic share count is 1
> > * 150.1.12.2, from 150.1.2.2, 00:00:26 ago, via Serial1/0.1
> > Route metric is 65, traffic share count is 1
> >
> > r1#conf t
> > Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
> > r1(config)# ip route 150.1.3.3 255.255.255.255 150.1.13.3 110
> r1(config)#^Z
> > r1#show ip route 150.1.3.3 Routing entry for 150.1.3.3/32
> > Known via "static", distance 110, metric 0
> > Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> > * 150.1.13.3
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 -larry
> >
> > On 2/5/08, Joseph Brunner <joe@affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Both would be in the routing table. But there will no load
balancing
> >> unless cef is disabled (no ip cef). With cef the OLDEST or first
> >> learned route is USED only... so if you want true load balancing
using
> >> the routing table, disable cef.
> >>
> >> josCEF
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
Behalf
> >> Of Robert CCIE
> >> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:07 PM
> >> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> Subject: Route preference
> >>
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >> I was just wondering how a router behaves in these situations. If
a
> >> router learns a route through a routing protocol but there is a
static
> >> route with the same admin distance configured. Which route would
be
> >> installed in the routing table? Or would both be installed? Also,
> >> I'm guessing metrics only matter for that routing protocols process
as
> >> far as calculation since a static route has a metric of 0.
> >>
> >> So, if a router is learning 192.168.1.0/24 through ospf and there
is a
> >> static route for 192.168.1.0/24 with AD of 110. Thank you in
advance.
> >>
> >> -Robert
> >>
> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:48 ARST