That's correct, and having a lower administrative distance means that a
static route is "preferred" over a dynamic route, but not "faster." If the
router has more than one way to get to a network in its routing table, it
selects the path with the lowest administrative distance, which would be a
static route by default.
Sorry, if it seems like I'm being picky, but it sounded like maybe someone
had told you the static route would be faster. It's probably just a
language thing. We Americans expect everyone to understand our strange
wordings! &;-)
Priscilla
At 03:09 PM 9/11/00, jeongwoo park wrote:
>Thanks for your reply
>Just want to clarify what I meant.
>When I said that static route gives us faster traffic
>transmission, it meant that static route's
>administrative distance is 1, which is lower than
>other dynamic routing protocols' administrative
>distance.
>Can I say this?
>Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>Thanks in adv.
>
>jeongwoo
>
>
>--- Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just being picky, but I can't see how static routing
> > would give you faster
> > traffic transmission than dynamic routing. The
> > router still looks into the
> > routing table and finds a route for the first
> > process-switched packet. From
> > then on it uses the fast-switching cache, (unless
> > configured not to do so.)
> > But just because it's a static route instead of a
> > dynamic route doesn't
> > make it any faster.
> >
> > Static routing uses less bandwidth because no
> > routing updates are sent, but
> > that's a different concern. Also, dynamic routing
> > protocols can be slow to
> > converge when problems occur, but fast-converging
> > protocols such as EIGRP
> > and OSPF wouldn't have this problem. Also, if you
> > just have single links
> > and no redundancy, there's nothing to converge to
> > anyway.
> >
> > Static routes will work but could get cumbersome to
> > configure and maintain
> > as your network grows. Also, do the branch offices
> > just need to get to the
> > central office, or do the branches talk to each
> > other? If so, a default
> > route or a routing protocol might be a better option
> > to avoid having to
> > specify each network.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > >----Original Message Follows----
> > >From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: static route question ??
> > >Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >HI all.
> > >Situation:
> > >There is a central site in San Francisco, and four
> > >branches around Bay area.
> > >Since static route gives us faster traffic
> > >transmission, would it be the most desirable way to
> > >configure static route on all routers, regardless
> > >whether it is a central site router or branch
> > office
> > >router?
> > >If not, why not?
> > >
> > >Thanks in adv.
> > >
> > >jeongwoo
> > >
> >
> >
> > ________________________
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > http://www.priscilla.com
> >
> > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more
> > information go to
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
> > _________________________________
> > UPDATED Posting Guidelines:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
**NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html
_________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
