Re: IE OEQ Question...

Yep, definitely not a "static route" just a null route inserted by the
summarization for loop prevention : )

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Scott Morris <smorris_at_ine.com> wrote:

> I don't see an S there.... The D indicates to me a summary-address
> command created this. IF there was a static route, it has a higher AD
> value and isn't part of the equation anyway!
>
> But I'll track the question down and see what else is surrounding that
> one if it's one of ours! :)
>
>
>
>
> *Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
>
> JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
>
> JNCI-M, JNCI-ER
>
> evil_at_ine.com
>
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
>
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
>
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
>
> Outside US: 775-826-4344
>
>
> Knowledge is power.
>
> Power corrupts.
>
> Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Johns wrote:
> > I came across a question posed by the IE OEQ simulator that had something
> like this output displayed:
> >
> >
> > D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
> > N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
> > E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
> > i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS
> level-2
> > ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static
> route
> > o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
> >
> > Gateway of last resort is not set
> >
> > 172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
> > C 172.16.1.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback10
> > D 172.16.0.0/16 is a summary, 00:00:39, Null0
> > 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 2 masks
> > C 10.50.50.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback4
> > C 10.40.40.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback3
> > C 10.30.30.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback2
> > C 10.20.20.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0
> >
> >
> > And it asked what the router would do when destined to 172.16.2.0...
> >
> > The answer provided said that it would be dropped due to a static route
> to Null0 or something like that. The wording definitely specified "static".
> >
> > My answer was the packet would be null routed which means it will be
> dropped.
> >
> > I understand the necessity to explain what configuration caused by the
> route to Null0. This one is caused by an EIGRP summary address configured
> one the interface, not a static... Does anybody know why this route might
> be considered a static?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ron Johns
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Joe Astorino - CCIE #24347 R&S
Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
Cell: +1.586.212.6107
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
Mailto:  jastorino_at_ipexpert.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net