From: Pavel Bykov (slidersv@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2008 - 17:44:34 ARST
Yes, correct.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Hyunseog Ryu <r.hyunseog@ieee.org> wrote:
> As long as it can find any network containing next-hop IP address from
> routing table.
> So if you have default route (0.0.0.0/0), it will be hit as very last
> resort.
> Therefore it will pick up the next-hop ip address from default route to
> replace "down"ed interface ip address next-hop ip address.
>
>
>
> Joe wrote:
> > Ya, this is what I have seen. Again, at what point is the route NOT
> specific
> > enough for the static to disappear and is that something you can
> configure?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/14/08 11:02 AM, "Hyunseog Ryu" <r.hyunseog@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> We had this issue in the past.
> >> If int X fails, 11.11.11.0/24 will still exist in routing table because
> >> of recursive lookup.
> >>
> >> That's why you have to use interface name instead of next-hop IP address
> >> if possible.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have a question on recursive lookups, hopefully I can phrase it in a
> way
> >>> that makes sense. Thanks
> >>>
> >>> If I have a static route like:
> >>> Ip route 11.11.11.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.10.1
> >>>
> >>> And I have a route table that looks something like this:
> >>> C 10.10.10.0/24 via int X
> >>> O 10.10.0.0/16 via x.x.x.x
> >>> E 10.0.0.0/8 via x.x.x.x
> >>> B 0.0.0.0
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully you get the idea of the route table...doesn't matter how the
> >>> routes are learned... just the idea of multiple routes (each less
> specific).
> >>>
> >>> What happens when I lose my directly connected interface? How
> "un-specific"
> >>> of a route will the router use for a recursive lookup? *I know in this
> >>> example if I lost the /24 then the next most specific /16 in this case
> is
> >>> next in line but at what point will the router say it won't use a valid
> >>> route (as far as the route table) for a recursive lookup?
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe it will ever use a default route but it seems like I've
> seen
> >>> it try to recurse off a /14 route. In my opinion that is an undesirable
> >>> behavior (let's say you have a summary address to null 0, you wouldn't
> want
> >>> you statics still showing up as accessible because the next hop is
> reachable
> >>> via a /16 net lets say). I know, I can avoid that issue by adding a
> specific
> >>> interface to the static route, but would still like to know at what
> point do
> >>> I not do a recursive lookup. Thanks for the help
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> Subscription information may be found at:
> >>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- Pavel Bykov ------------------------------------------------- Stop the braindumps! http://www.stopbraindumps.com/Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 08:18:30 ARST