Am I missing something here? 192.168.0.0/18 and 192.168.0.19/19 are two different routes. It should put both of them in the routing table, not choose between them based on administrative distance.
Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: Jason J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes & route insertion [7:73727] well, in my thoughts, there is no loading balance in ospf. it will choose only one route and put it into its ospf routing table. also i got a case: when there is a route from EBGP peer which is 192.168.0.0/19 and also a route comes from static input which is 192.168.0.0/18, which one do you think the router will pick ?? the answer is : the route from EBGP! Jason G.F CCNP **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73772&t=73727 -------------------------------------------------- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
