Black Jack wrote: > > Thanks for the reply--regarding the show ip route display, the > line > " is directly connected below the interface static apparently represents the next-hop > static, because if you remove the next-hop route that line goes > away. Also, with both routes in place, a "show ip route > 100.0.0.0" shows both routes, again with a AD of 1.
Blankety blank, why did it put blanks in!? But you are right, and I have to agree with you, also, that the administrative distance is 1, regardless of whether you point to a connected interface or next-hop IP address. Isn't that weird that so many old-timers had this wrong? There must be a grain of truth in it, even though it wasn't true even as long ago as 10.3, from the testing I have done. Weird. Thank-you very much, Black Jack, for bringing it to our attention! I should have bought insurance! ;-) Priscilla > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > > > Black Jack wrote: > > > > > > I set up 2 2500s, connected through serial 0 and ethernet 0. > > > Addressing as follows: > > > router matt--- e0-192.168.1.1, s0-10.1.1.1 > > > router alex--- e0-192.168.1.2, s0-10.1.1.2, lo0 100.1.1.1 > > > > > > I then put 2 statics in matt: > > > ip route 100.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 Ethernet0 > > > ip route 100.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.1.1.2 > > > > > > So if the 1st route has AD 0 and the 2nd route AD 1, only > the > > > 1st should enter the routing table and only the 1st should > be > > > used. The second route is essentially a floating static. > > > > Well, if you do a show ip route, you won't see the second one: > > > > matt#show ip route > > Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - > > mobile, B - BGP > > D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF > > inter area > > E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E > > - EGP > > i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, * - > > candidate default > > > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > > > 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0 > > S 100.0.0.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 > > is directly connected > > C 192.168.1.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 > > matt# > > > > I also tried reversing them (pointing to s0 and the IP address > > on the other end of the Ethernet) and then only the s0 route > > appears in the table. > > > > > > > > But this is not what happens: > > > > > > matt#debug ip packet > > > IP packet debugging is on > > > matt#ping 100.1.1.2 > > > > > > Type escape sequence to abort. > > > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 100.1.1.2, timeout is 2 > > > seconds: > > > !!!!! > > > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = > > > 8/8/8 ms > > > matt# > > > IP: s=10.1.1.1 (local), d=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), len 100, > > sending > > > IP: s=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), d=10.1.1.1 (Serial0), len 100, > > rcvd 3 > > > IP: s=10.1.1.1 (local), d=100.1.1.2 (Ethernet0), len 100, > > > sending > > > IP: s=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), d=10.1.1.1 (Serial0), len 100, > > rcvd 3 > > > IP: s=10.1.1.1 (local), d=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), len 100, > > sending > > > IP: s=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), d=10.1.1.1 (Serial0), len 100, > > rcvd 3 > > > IP: s=10.1.1.1 (local), d=100.1.1.2 (Ethernet0), len 100, > > > sending > > > IP: s=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), d=10.1.1.1 (Serial0), len 100, > > rcvd 3 > > > IP: s=10.1.1.1 (local), d=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), len 100, > > sending > > > IP: s=100.1.1.2 (Serial0), d=10.1.1.1 (Serial0), len 100, > > rcvd 3 > > > > > > As you can see, both routes are used and the packets are > load > > > balanced. > > > > Yes, that's what I see too. I'm running 11.0 so it's worked > > this way for a while. > > > > I agree that it is strange. Why would it use that second > static > > route if it seemingly isn't in the table? > > > > > > > > Also, consider the following output: > > > > > > matt#debug ip routing > > > IP routing debugging is on > > > matt#clear ip route * > > > matt# > > > RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, connected metric [0/0] > > > RT: add 10.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, connected metric [0/0] > > > RT: add 100.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, static metric [1/0] > > > RT: add 100.0.0.0/8 via 10.1.1.2, static metric [1/0] > > > > > > The truely connected routes are shown with AD 0, whereas > both > > > statics have an AD 0f 1. > > > > That's what I see too. > > > > I don't know what to say, other than maybe the "official word" > > became that the interface-referencing one uses AD 0 to explain > > why the other one doesn't show up when you do show ip route?? > > > > This discussion seems vaguely familiar. Any of you lifers > > remember this, Chuck, Howard? :-) > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > So it seems to me that the interface static has AD 1, not 0. > > > > > > Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > > > > > > At 9:37 PM +0000 9/13/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > > > >Black Jack wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I saw this topic on another list where it did not get > > much > > > > >> comment, but it has raised my curiosity. Experts > (Doyle > > I > > > p. > > > > >> 107, Caslow p. 313) say that the administrative > distance > > > of > > > > a > > > > >> static route referencing a local interface is 0, > > whereas a > > > > >> static route referencing a next hop address has AD 1. > It > > > is > > > > >> true that in the output of "show ip route" the > interface > > > > static > > > > >> looks like a directly connected route, but after some > > > simple > > > > >> tests I am convinced that the route really has an AD > of > > 1, > > > > not > > > > >> 0. I find it hard to believe that these two could be > > > wrong, > > > > >> which makes me wonder if this behavior is a feaure of > > > newer > > > > >> IOS's (I tested on 12.0). Can anyone shine some light > on > > > > this? > > > > >> I am almost ready to load up an old IOS just to see. > > BTW, > > > I > > > > am > > > > >> unable to find a reference on CCO which makes the AD 0 > > > > claim. > > > > > > > > > >What were your tests? It's been considered a well-known > > fact > > > > for years (and > > > > >many IOS versions) that a static route referencing an > > > > interface has a > > > > >distance of 0, while a static route referencing the next > > hop > > > > has a distance > > > > >of 1. > > > > > > > > > >Doesn't mean it's true, ;-), but it's been the party line > > for > > > > the numerous > > > > >years that I've worked with Cisco stuff. > > > > > > > > My source was Tony Li, who wrote the code. I had asked him > > > how > > > > difficult it would be to assign nonzero ADs to > > > > interface-referencing > > > > routes, and he said it would be a complete rewrite of the > > > > static > > > > route code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53456&t=53282 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
