I think the answer lies in where GW2.bne gets the better route from which, according to your output, is currently 203.147.255.156 (a misconfigured address or type-o)?
At any rate, it appears that device 203.147.255.156 has a better route through Gw1.bne for the supernet 203.147.144.0/20 which includes networks 203.147.144.0 - 203.147.160.0 (this includes the suspect route 203.147.154.136/29) If your output is correct I suspect that Gs1.bne maintains the IP 203.147.255.156 directly connected and Gs1.bne has a bad supernet route. If the output is a type-o and it should read 203.147.255.186 then look at the bad supernet/route on Gw1.bne2 My thoughts are two options: 1. Metric manipulation Go to Gw1.bne2 and do "redistribute static metric 1" such that Gw1.bne2 looks like the better route. 2. Fix supernet source Look at the 203.147.255.156 device for the supernet routing statement (or the source thereof) and try using a /21 bit mask for the 203.147.144.0 supernet. This will exclude the 203.147.153.0 - 203.147.160.0 networks from the supernet (and the bad route). I'm not sure what the rest of the topology is, but you may have split networks across a supernet routing entry and changing the mask would create bad routes for the dropped supernetted networks - so be careful. Let me know how it goes. Andy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42449&t=42298 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
