Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Munit Singla
Hi all, Can anybody tell me when I add static route to my default network it shows with Administrative distance of 1,whereas we know that static routes to our own interface have AD. of zero. Example C 10.77.152.128/25 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.77.152.129 i

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Tunde Kalejaiye
all static routes have an AD of 1...whether it is using ur interface or not. all directly connected interface have an AD of 0 - Original Message - From: "Munit Singla" To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 4:44 PM Subject: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] >

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Munit Singla
all static routes have an AD of 1...whether it is using ur interface or not. > all directly connected interface have an AD of 0 > - Original Message - > From: "Munit Singla" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 4:44 PM > Subject: Strange problem of route table

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread chris kane
> all static routes have an AD of 1...whether it is using ur interface or not. > all directly connected interface have an AD of 0 > > Hi all, > > Can anybody tell me when I add static route to my default network it shows > > with Administrative distance of 1,whereas we know that static routes to >

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Godswill Oletu
etc... Regards. Godswill Oletu - Original Message - From: Munit Singla To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] > Hi all, > Can anybody tell me when I add static route to my default network it shows > with Administrative

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Munit Singla
o depends whether you > want to do load balancing, floating static route, etc... > > Regards. > Godswill Oletu > > - Original Message - > From: Munit Singla > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:44 AM > Subject: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] > &g

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Munit Singla
Hi Chris, Hi the why its showing in the rout table.I have already given my route table.Please refer it and do clear my confusion. Regards, Munit chris kane wrote: > > all static routes have an AD of 1...whether it is using ur interface or > not. > > all directly connected interface have an AD of

Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-19 Thread Godswill Oletu
l help you. Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: Munit Singla To: Godswill Oletu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 5:56 PM Subject: Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] Hi Godswill, Thanx for reply.I agree with u,but Still the doubt persists if b

WAS RE: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-20 Thread Daniel Cotts
; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] > > > Hi Godswill, > Thanx for reply.I agree with u,but Still the doubt persists > if both the > commands > are used then both entries come to the route table.As per > your and mine > theo

Re: WAS RE: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]

2002-12-20 Thread Munit Singla
255.255.0 FE0 (AD=0) > > > > > > If both commands are entered option 2 will be the prefered route. > > > > > > So you are correct, choose the one you prefer, it also > > depends whether you > > > want to do load balancing, floating static route, etc.