Black Jack wrote: > > So I guess it's now 1,000,001 times :-)) Still, I don't blame > anyone for believing this urban legend of the networking world > when authorities such as Doyle and Caslow continue to propagate > it. I just wonder how the AD=0 rumor ever got started.
It used to be true!? It also wasn't relevant anyway. She asked if there were any performance issues... > > However, although the AD=1 for both routes, they are not the > same in all respects. One important difference-- with the > interface form, the router considers any host reachable through > that interface to be directly connected and so ARPs for its > address. This does not happen for all hosts with a numeric next > hop. The ARP caveat isn't relevant in her case either, where the interface is a serial interface. I'm sure you knew that, but I thought I would mention it, since I don't think you did... The original question had to do with using a default route that points to an IP address or serial interface and whether there are any performance issues. I can't think of any performance issues and checked a few books and Web sites and nobody mentioned one. I can't think of any issues other than the one that someone brought up about IP address renumbering being a bit harder if you used an IP address instead of an interface number. > > This might not make a difference in the case given, but suppose > your default route pointed to an interface rather than a > numeric next hop? > > See The URL is for partners only. Where are the tech notes for us lowly non-partner users? Priscilla > > for a more detailed exmple and explanation. > > > > > > Sasa Milic wrote: > > > > This was discussed a milion times; static route that > > points to an interface has AD=1. > > > > Sasa > > CCIE #8635 > > > > > > Nakul Malik wrote: > > > > > > by default, a static route has an AD of 1. > > > If the static route points to an exit interface, the AD=0. > > > > > > That is the only difference > > > > > > HTH. > > > > > > -Nakul > > > > > > ""Karyn Williams"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > We recently added another interface, S1/1, that connects a > > private line to > > > > another school. We are routing 156.3.37.0 to them. Should > I > > have route > > > > statements that say > > > > > > > > ip route 156.3.37.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2 > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > ip route 156.3.37.0 255.255.255.0 Serial1/1 > > > > > > > > Current config: > > > > > > > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/0 > > > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/1 > > > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial1/0 > > > > ip route 65.165.174.0 255.255.254.0 FastEthernet0/0 > > > > ip route 156.3.37.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2 > > > > ip route 198.182.157.0 255.255.255.0 65.165.175.253 > > > > ip route 207.233.56.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested if there is a performance difference > > between these two > > > > route statements or any other reason why one would be > > preferred over the > > > > other. TIA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Karyn Williams, CNE > > > > Network Services Manager > > > > California Institute of the Arts > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://www.calarts.edu/network > > -- > > > > Regards, > > Sasa > > CCIE #8635 > > > > > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72490&t=72406 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
