Re: Static Routes
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Hussam Adili wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I looking for an answer to the following questions: > 1) How many equal path cost static routes to the same destination > network can a cisco router support. usually 4 by default, but expandable to 6 with the maximum-paths command. > 2) how Can traffic be load shared between two redundant links on 1 to 3 > ratio using static routing (i.e. 1 packet on one interface and 3 > packets on the other.) I don't believe you can do this.not "balancing" like that. Do you have something against running EIGRP on those links? Brian > > Your help is highly appreciated > > -- > Hussam N. Adili > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881) _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes
> 2) how Can traffic be load shared between two redundant links on 1 to 3 > ratio using static routing (i.e. 1 packet on one interface and 3 > packets on the other.) I don't believe you can do this.not "balancing" like that. Do you have something against running EIGRP on those links? How about 2 secondary addresses on the interface that you wish to send 3/4 of the traffic over? ex: int s0 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252 int s0 ip address 10.0.0.5 255.255.255.252 ip address 10.0.0.9 255.255.255.252 sec ip address 10.0.0.13 255.255.255.252 sec ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.2 ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.6 ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.14 Don't know if this'll work; never tried it. Regards, --phil _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Static Routes
Yes. I agree with Philip static route will not support load uneven balancing but EIGRP will. Static route will send out the packet in rotating basis and ignore the BW define. Q 1. Up to 6 static routes can be supported by Cisco IOS. Rgds, Sam > -Original Message- > From: Phillip Heller [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:47 AM > To: Brian > Cc: Hussam Adili; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Static Routes > > > 2) how Can traffic be load shared between two redundant links on 1 > to 3 > > ratio using static routing (i.e. 1 packet on one interface and 3 > > packets on the other.) > > I don't believe you can do this.not "balancing" like that. Do > you > have something against running EIGRP on those links? > > How about 2 secondary addresses on the interface that you wish to send 3/4 > of the traffic over? > > ex: > > int s0 > ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252 > > int s0 > ip address 10.0.0.5 255.255.255.252 > ip address 10.0.0.9 255.255.255.252 sec > ip address 10.0.0.13 255.255.255.252 sec > > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.2 > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.6 > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.14 > > Don't know if this'll work; never tried it. > > Regards, > > --phil > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes
There is a yes answer to #2, but it probably requires 2 routers. Basically, you need to have four paths between the routers either four interfaces or vlan trunks, static routes on the "LAN" router, and policy routes "internet" router. Can it be done in one router? I'm not sure, but here's something to try. Build four loopback interfaces, four static default routes to the loopbacks, and do policy routing on the in-bound traffic on the loopbacks setting the next hop to the serial interfaces (1 to one interface 3 to the other). Enjoy, Rodgers Moore "Hussam Adili" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi everyone, > > I looking for an answer to the following questions: > 1) How many equal path cost static routes to the same destination > network can a cisco router support. > 2) how Can traffic be load shared between two redundant links on 1 to 3 > ratio using static routing (i.e. 1 packet on one interface and 3 > packets on the other.) > > Your help is highly appreciated > > -- > Hussam N. Adili > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Static Routes
The other downfall of using static routes to load balance is that you are process switching the packets and not fast switching. Here's Cisco's definations on the two... Fast Switching Cisco feature whereby a route cache is used to expedite packet switching through a router Process switching Operation that provides full route evaluation and per-packet load balancing across parallel WAN links. Involves the transmission of entire frames to the router CPU, where they are repackaged for delivery to or from a WAN interface, with the router making a route selection for each packet. Process switching is the most resource-intensive switching operation that the CPU can perform. Here is a white paper on load balancing: Alternatives for High Bandwidth Connections Using Parallel T1/E1 Links http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/pa/much/tech/althb_wp.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SAM Meng Wai Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 7:13 PM To: 'Phillip Heller'; Brian Cc: Hussam Adili; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Static Routes Yes. I agree with Philip static route will not support load uneven balancing but EIGRP will. Static route will send out the packet in rotating basis and ignore the BW define. Q 1. Up to 6 static routes can be supported by Cisco IOS. Rgds, Sam > -Original Message- > From: Phillip Heller [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:47 AM > To: Brian > Cc: Hussam Adili; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Static Routes > > > 2) how Can traffic be load shared between two redundant links on 1 > to 3 > > ratio using static routing (i.e. 1 packet on one interface and 3 > > packets on the other.) > > I don't believe you can do this.not "balancing" like that. Do > you > have something against running EIGRP on those links? > > How about 2 secondary addresses on the interface that you wish to send 3/4 > of the traffic over? > > ex: > > int s0 > ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252 > > int s0 > ip address 10.0.0.5 255.255.255.252 > ip address 10.0.0.9 255.255.255.252 sec > ip address 10.0.0.13 255.255.255.252 sec > > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.2 > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.6 > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.14 > > Don't know if this'll work; never tried it. > > Regards, > > --phil > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Static routes [7:15851]
Sure, except that you might defeat the purpose of having a loopback address by doing this. Say you've got a scenario where you have two routers connected by three separate connections: /-\ O---O \_/ If you specify the next hop of the loopback to be just *one* of the interfaces on the other router, then the loopback will be inaccessable if that one interface on the other router goes down. If you're using static routes, be sure to include all the different paths you can take to get to the other router - which may be complex enough to warrant just going to RIP or OSPF. ;-) BJ -Original Message- From: Hawthorne, Mike MM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Static routes [7:15851] Can anyone tell me if you are able to use a loopback address in a static route. For example ip route x.x.x.x y.y.y.y 196.8.87.17 x.x.x.x y.y.y.y being the loopback address. Thanks Mike Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=15852&t=15851 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes [7:15851]
Yes, you can. - Original Message - From: Hawthorne, Mike MM To: Sent: Monday, 13 August, 2001 14:08 Subject: Static routes [7:15851] > Can anyone tell me if you are able to use a loopback address in a static > route. For example > ip route x.x.x.x y.y.y.y 196.8.87.17 > > x.x.x.x y.y.y.y being the loopback address. > > Thanks > Mike > > > > __ > > Disclaimer and confidentiality note > > Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official > business of Standard Bank Investment Corporation (Stanbic) > is proprietary to the company. It is confidential, legally privileged and > protected by law.\ > Stanbic does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are > those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of Stanbic. > > The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. > Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you > and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. > > Stanbic can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been > maintained > nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. > > > __ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=15853&t=15851 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes [7:15851]
Yes, you very well can. That is infact the way it is used when you need to load-balance a BGP session with 2 T-1's with your ISP.:-) >From: "Charles Manafa" >Reply-To: "Charles Manafa" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Static routes [7:15851] >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:33:43 -0400 > >Yes, you can. > >- Original Message - >From: Hawthorne, Mike MM >To: >Sent: Monday, 13 August, 2001 14:08 >Subject: Static routes [7:15851] > > > > Can anyone tell me if you are able to use a loopback address in a static > > route. For example > > ip route x.x.x.x y.y.y.y 196.8.87.17 > > > > x.x.x.x y.y.y.y being the loopback address. > > > > Thanks > > Mike > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Disclaimer and confidentiality note > > > > Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relating to the official > > business of Standard Bank Investment Corporation (Stanbic) > > is proprietary to the company. It is confidential, legally privileged and > > protected by law.\ > > Stanbic does not own and endorse any other content. Views and opinions are > > those of the sender unless clearly stated as being that of Stanbic. > > > > The person addressed in the e-mail is the sole authorised recipient. > > Please notify the sender immediately if it has unintentionally reached you > > and do not read, disclose or use the content in any way. > > > > Stanbic can not assure that the integrity of this communication has been > > maintained > > nor that it is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. > > > > > > __ misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16130&t=15851 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: static routes [7:29372]
When your hosts receives the ping, it will try to send a reply back to destination network 10.2.2.0. The Hosts are connected on a 192.168.1.0 network. Your host should recognize that the destination network 10.2.2.0 is not on its local ethernet segment so it will forward the ping reply to its default gateway(the hosts default gateway). The host's default gateway should be 192.168.1.33. Make sure that your hosts have this default gateway(192.168.1.33) configured correctly. Let me know if this was the problem ""Richard Wilson"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi > > I know Im doing something completely stupid here so > please be kind. > > Master and Oldie are linked via S0 (10.2.2.0/24). > 192.168.1.0/24 is a network on e0 > Im trying to use static routes as you can see. No > routing protocols are running. > From Oldie, I can ping the Ethernet interface > (192.168.1.33) but I cant ping a host out on the > 192.168.1.0 network. What is wrong? > > > Current configuration: > ! > version 11.0 > service udp-small-servers > service tcp-small-servers > ! > hostname Oldie > ! > ! > partition flash 2 8 8 > ! > ! > interface Serial0 > ip address 10.2.2.2 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Serial1 > no ip address > shutdown > ! > interface TokenRing0 > no ip address > shutdown > ! > ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.2.2.1 > ! > ! > line con 0 > line aux 0 > transport input all > line vty 0 4 > login > ! > end > > Oldie# > > Current configuration: > ! > version 11.2 > no service udp-small-servers > no service tcp-small-servers > ! > hostname Master > ! > enable secret 5 $1$R9bp$WOhi9Vc5vjX9rqoRVd/zY. > ! > no ip domain-lookup > ip host internet 2003 10.1.1.1 > ip host netguy 2002 10.1.1.1 > ip host oldie 2001 10.1.1.1 > ! > interface Loopback0 > ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Ethernet0 > ip address 192.168.1.33 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Serial0 > ip address 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0 > clockrate 56000 > ! > interface Serial1 > no ip address > shutdown > ! > no ip classless > ip default-network 192.168.1.0 > ! > line con 0 > line 1 8 > no exec > transport input all > line 9 16 > line aux 0 > line vty 0 4 > password cisco > login > ! > end > > Master# > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of > your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com > or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29374&t=29372 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: static routes [7:29372]
You can also either/or (to what router man suggested) remove the ip default-network command, and it would work as well.. Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29380&t=29372 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
The router will first make a longest match comparison and thus match the 10.2.2.4/30 route. At 12:39 PM 7/24/2002 +, Antonio Montana wrote: >Hi, > >if there is a packet for the destination 10.2.2.6 >and x.x.x.x is down. >Is the router permanently trying to send it via x.x.x.x (because of its >lower AD of 202) and drop it all the time ?!? > >Or is it going to send it via y.y.y.y (ignoring the higer AD of 203) ? > >S 10.0.0.0/8 [202/0] via x.x.x.x >S 10.2.2.4/30 [203/0] via y.y.y.y > >thanks >monti Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49518&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
If x.x.x.x is down the static route is no longer valid and is purged unless you add the "permenant" keyword. Dave Antonio Montana wrote: > > Hi, > > if there is a packet for the destination 10.2.2.6 > and x.x.x.x is down. > Is the router permanently trying to send it via x.x.x.x (because of its > lower AD of 202) and drop it all the time ?!? > > Or is it going to send it via y.y.y.y (ignoring the higer AD of 203) ? > > S 10.0.0.0/8 [202/0] via x.x.x.x > S 10.2.2.4/30 [203/0] via y.y.y.y > > thanks > monti -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49523&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
MADMAN, what if x.x.x.x is an ip address from a BRI0 interface that is up/up but BRI0:1 and BRI0:2 are down ?? monti Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49524&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
It's up up but spoofing which doesn't count. Dave Antonio Montana wrote: > > MADMAN, > > what if x.x.x.x is an ip address from a BRI0 interface that is up/up but > BRI0:1 and BRI0:2 are down ?? > > monti -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49527&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
I take that last email back!!! The static will be in your route table and if interesting it will activate the channel(s) Dave Antonio Montana wrote: > > MADMAN, > > what if x.x.x.x is an ip address from a BRI0 interface that is up/up but > BRI0:1 and BRI0:2 are down ?? > > monti -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49528&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
yep, it's in my routing table ... so, than the longest match has precedence over administrative distance like Peter van Oene replied, right ?? thanks a lot monti Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49529&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
That's actually not the fact. The router has no way of ever knowing whether x.x.x.x is down. I think MADMAN means that if x.x.x.x's corresponding route interface leaves up/up, only a 'permanent' route will persist. Jay greenberg On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 09:57, MADMAN wrote: > If x.x.x.x is down the static route is no longer valid and is purged > unless you add the "permenant" keyword. > > Dave > > Antonio Montana wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > if there is a packet for the destination 10.2.2.6 > > and x.x.x.x is down. > > Is the router permanently trying to send it via x.x.x.x (because of its > > lower AD of 202) and drop it all the time ?!? > > > > Or is it going to send it via y.y.y.y (ignoring the higer AD of 203) ? > > > > S 10.0.0.0/8 [202/0] via x.x.x.x > > S 10.2.2.4/30 [203/0] via y.y.y.y > > > > thanks > > monti Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49531&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
a common misunderstanding. Administrative distance applies only to the process of placing routes into the routing table. It has nothing to do with the actual forwarding process. I.e. if identical OSPF, EIGRP, and static routes exist for the same destination, administrative distance determines with route is placed into the routing table. In your case, you have two different routes ( subnets of the same major net ) so both appear in the table. ""Antonio Montana"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > yep, > > it's in my routing table ... > so, than the longest match has precedence over administrative distance like > Peter van Oene replied, right ?? > > thanks a lot > monti Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49532&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static routes ... [7:49517]
Here is the command. I tried it on a 7407 but it didn't work as advertised!! http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_r/iprprt2/1rdindep.htm#1018069 Dave Jay Greenberg wrote: > > That's actually not the fact. The router has no way of ever knowing > whether x.x.x.x is down. I think MADMAN means that if x.x.x.x's > corresponding route interface leaves up/up, only a 'permanent' route > will persist. > > Jay greenberg > > On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 09:57, MADMAN wrote: > > If x.x.x.x is down the static route is no longer valid and is purged > > unless you add the "permenant" keyword. > > > > Dave > > > > Antonio Montana wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > if there is a packet for the destination 10.2.2.6 > > > and x.x.x.x is down. > > > Is the router permanently trying to send it via x.x.x.x (because of its > > > lower AD of 202) and drop it all the time ?!? > > > > > > Or is it going to send it via y.y.y.y (ignoring the higer AD of 203) ? > > > > > > S 10.0.0.0/8 [202/0] via x.x.x.x > > > S 10.2.2.4/30 [203/0] via y.y.y.y > > > > > > thanks > > > monti -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49571&t=49517 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059]
A typical static route will have an AD of 1, or possibly even 0 if it's pointing directly to an interface. A floating static would have an AD higher than whatever routing protocol you're running. If you see statics in the table with high ADs then those are likely "floating". HTH, John >>> "Todd Carswell" 11/2/01 7:48:14 AM >>> I know that Static Routes have a higher priority than routes learned dynamically. I've also learned that the exception to this rule is that floating static routes can take a back seat to dynamic routes. (Please feel free to beat me about the head if I'm wrong on this one. It will only help me in the long run!) Here's my question: If I'm looking at the routing table in a router that I did not configure, how can I know that a static route is a floating static route and not just a "run-o-the-mill" static route? Thx Todd Carswell Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25062&t=25059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059]
Look at the config. A floating static will have a metric higher than that of the dynamic which makes it "float" or not injected into the routing table unless the dynamically learned route is lost. Dave Todd Carswell wrote: > > I know that Static Routes have a higher priority than routes learned > dynamically. I've also learned that the exception to this rule is that > floating static routes can take a back seat to dynamic routes. (Please feel > free to beat me about the head if I'm wrong on this one. It will only help > me in the long run!) > > Here's my question: > > If I'm looking at the routing table in a router that I did not configure, > how can I know that a static route is a floating static route and not just a > "run-o-the-mill" static route? > > Thx > > Todd Carswell -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25066&t=25059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059]
Todd, A standard static route has an administrative distance of 1, meaning directly connected. A floating static route is a route that has its administrative distance set higher than any other route (static or dynamic). Hence that route will not be used (floating) unless the route with a lower administrative distance goes away. Oleg. "Todd Carswell"To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059] Sent by: nobody@groups tudy.com 11/02/01 09:48 AM Please respond to "Todd Carswell" I know that Static Routes have a higher priority than routes learned dynamically. I've also learned that the exception to this rule is that floating static routes can take a back seat to dynamic routes. (Please feel free to beat me about the head if I'm wrong on this one. It will only help me in the long run!) Here's my question: If I'm looking at the routing table in a router that I did not configure, how can I know that a static route is a floating static route and not just a "run-o-the-mill" static route? Thx Todd Carswell Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25067&t=25059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059]
Not quite true A static route can have an admin distance of 0 or 1 as default If configured to point a local exit interface it will have an AD of 0 and be seen by the routing table as directly connected. If configured to point to a next hop address then it has an AD of 1.In this case it will be seen in the routing table as a static route rather than directly connected. regards Andy - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059] > Todd, > > A standard static route has an administrative distance of 1, meaning > directly connected. A floating static route is a route that has its > administrative distance set higher than any other route (static or > dynamic). Hence that route will not be used (floating) unless the route > with a lower administrative distance goes away. > > > Oleg. > > > > > > "Todd > Carswell"To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Static Routes vs. Dynamic > Routes [7:25059] > Sent > by: > > nobody@groups > > tudy.com > > > > 11/02/01 > 09:48 > AM > > Please > respond > to > > "Todd > > Carswell" > > > > > > > I know that Static Routes have a higher priority than routes learned > dynamically. I've also learned that the exception to this rule is that > floating static routes can take a back seat to dynamic routes. (Please > feel > free to beat me about the head if I'm wrong on this one. It will only help > me in the long run!) > > Here's my question: > > If I'm looking at the routing table in a router that I did not configure, > how can I know that a static route is a floating static route and not just > a > "run-o-the-mill" static route? > > Thx > > Todd Carswell Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25084&t=25059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes vs. Dynamic Routes [7:25059]
> If I'm looking at the routing table in a router that I did not configure, > how can I know that a static route is a floating static route and not just a > "run-o-the-mill" static route? > S network/masklength [AD/METRIC] how-connected, where AD is administrative distance by the administrative distance displayed in the routing table: sample routing table: S 10.1.1.0/24 [0/0] is directly connected, Serial 0 S 10.1.2.0 [1/0] via 10.1.20.1 S 10.1.3.0 [200/0] via 10.1.2.1 the corresponding routing statements in the configuration would be ! the default directly connected administrative distance is 0 ip route 10.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 serial 0 ! the default administrative distance is 1 for a next-hop static route ip route 10.1.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.20.1 ! when an administrative distance is indicated, it takes its place in the routing table. If the administrative distance is too low, it will override dynamic routing protocols and not 'float'. If there's another exactly matching route in the RT with a lower AD, the static route won't be displayed in the RT ip route 10.1.3.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.20.1 200 > Thx > > Todd Carswell _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25187&t=25059 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes and Administrative Distance [7:72495]
John, The behavior changed with the IOS releases. Newer IOS releases with static routes pointing to an interface will have an administrative distance of 1, not 0. Older versions will have an administrative distance of 0. Unfortunately I do not know the exact release in which the behavior changed. The term "myth" is too strong and it's possible that the people that haven't worked with the older IOSs do not realize that this behavior was once different. This is the output from one of my routers running 12.2(15)T: Lab#show ip route 10.1.1.0 Routing entry for 10.1.1.0/24 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected) Routing Descriptor Blocks: * directly connected, via Serial0 Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 As far as I know, certification study materials still expect you to think that a static route to an interface has an AD of 0. - Tom John Neiberger wrote: > I accidentally deleted the posting about this but I wanted to make a point. > It's been said that a static route has an AD of 1 unless it points directly > out an interface, in which case it has an AD of 0. Sasa just mentioned that > this has been discussed in the past and is a myth. However, I'd like to > agree with the 'myth'. > > A directly connected route has an AD of 0. If you create a static route > pointing directly out an interface, that route will show up as directly > connected in the routing table, and would therefore have an AD of 0. In > fact, if you look at a static route you'll see the usual [AD/metric] listed > as [1/0]. However, if you look at a static route pointing out an interface > this is missing. This is because the router treats that route as if it were > directly connected to the interface. > > If I'm wrong about this--and I certainly might be--please let me know where > my reasoning is incorrect. > > Regards, > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72501&t=72495 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes and Administrative Distance [7:72495]
John Neiberger 7/17/03 12:12:42 PM >>> >I accidentally deleted the posting about this but I wanted to make a point. >It's been said that a static route has an AD of 1 unless it points directly >out an interface, in which case it has an AD of 0. Sasa just mentioned that >this has been discussed in the past and is a myth. However, I'd like to >agree with the 'myth'. > >A directly connected route has an AD of 0. If you create a static route >pointing directly out an interface, that route will show up as directly >connected in the routing table, and would therefore have an AD of 0. In >fact, if you look at a static route you'll see the usual [AD/metric] listed >as [1/0]. However, if you look at a static route pointing out an interface >this is missing. This is because the router treats that route as if it were >directly connected to the interface. > >If I'm wrong about this--and I certainly might be--please let me know where >my reasoning is incorrect. > >Regards, >John Nevermind, I've answered my own question by testing. A static route definitely has an AD of 1 regardless of the destination. If you simply do a "show ip route static" you won't see an administrative distance listed; it will show as directly connected. However, if you look at a specific static route, like 'show ip route 10.1.1.1', no matter which destination you used it will look like this: Router#sho ip route 20.1.1.1 Routing entry for 20.1.1.1/32 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected) Redistributing via eigrp 1 Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 172.16.10.75 Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 directly connected, via Ethernet0/2 Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 This output is caused by having both flavors of static route in the routing table at the same time. If the AD of one of them was actually zero it would be the only one listed. In this case, they both have an AD of 1. Regards, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72500&t=72495 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Static Routes and Administrative Distance [7:72495]
I am skeptical, Tom. Someone, I think it was Howard, researched this as far back as 9.x releases without finding the AD=0 behavior. I can't support this as I couldn't find it in the archives and I have not tried it myself. But, in order to prove that AD=0 never existed one would have to test all releases, a task that is probably impossible without a museum of hardware. But I think the burden of proof has to lie with the pro-AD=0 faction given the history on this issue. Tom Martin wrote: > > John, > > The behavior changed with the IOS releases. Newer IOS releases > with > static routes pointing to an interface will have an > administrative > distance of 1, not 0. Older versions will have an > administrative > distance of 0. Unfortunately I do not know the exact release in > which > the behavior changed. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72502&t=72495 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
