At 4:25 PM +0000 6/20/03, Lupi, Guy wrote: >This may be different in some IOS version, but in every version I have used >static routes pointing to an interface maintain the static route >administrative distance of one. (IP addresses removed to protect the >innocent ;)
Interface routes definitely did have an AD of zero in some older releases, certainly in IOS 9 and 10, and maybe 11-something. Tony Li wrote the original code, and confirmed to me that the base code would need a rewrite before you could vary the AD on interface static routes. Apparently, this has taken place; he still worked for Cisco when we had the exchange. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Troy Leliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:24 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Multiple Default Routes [7:70914] > >Using a next hop of an interface or IP address does have slightly >different behaviour. Using an interface as the next hop actually giev >the route an AD of 0 (ie a directly connected route), while that >pointing to an IP has an AD of 1. Small, but significant differences, >especially when redistributing static / connected into routing >protocols/ (eg redisitribute a connected interface, ie a route that >points to an interface, and it will show up as an internally learnt >EIGRP route, while the route pointing to an IP address will show up as >nan externally learnt route (ad=170), and thus differnt behaviour.) > > >There are slight performance gains to be made by referencing an outbound >interface as the next hop too, as the router doesn't have to do a lookup >to "resolve" which interface the next hop IP address is on. > > > >Poulin, Darnell wrote: >> Here are the entries we have... >> >> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.6.2 >> >> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.5.234 10 >> >> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.5.238 200 >> >> It's pretty straight-forward, so I'm not sure what the problem can be. We >> are using ver 12 of the IOS. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Zsombor Papp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:42 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Multiple Default Routes [7:70914] >> >> >> At 10:27 AM 6/19/2003 +0000, Chirag Arora wrote: >> >>>How are the default routes defined: using the next hop or using local >>>interface?? In case of local interface they will not flush out even if the >>>interface is down. In case of next hop it should. >> >> >> IMHO the route should be removed even if it's pointing to the local >> interface. With what version of IOS have you seen the behavior you >describe? >> >> Nevertheless, the best thing is to reference both a next hop and a local >> interface in the static route, as explained on the web page Srivathsan >sent. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Zsombor >> >> >> >>>Chirag Arora >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Poulin, Darnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:48 PM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Multiple Default Routes [7:70914] >>> >>> >>>Does anyone know of any problems using multiple static default routes on a >>>router using different metrics? We seem to be having a problem getting the >>>second or third default route to kick in once the primary one fails. On >the >>>secondary default route we are using a metric of 10, and on the third > >>default route we are using a metric of 200. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71032&t=70914 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
