[Re: [nsp] stupid question]

[Joshua Smith]

Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:26:57PM -0500, Joshua Smith wrote:
> > ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 se0/0 10.1.7.2
> > ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 se0/0 10.1.7.1
> 
> I'm not really sure why you are putting an interface *and* a next-hop
> IP into this route.  Especially for serial lines, either should be
> sufficient (serial0/0 preferred).

i was trying to keep my routes as specific as possible - but i will
probably change it

> 
> Maybe the 10.1.7.* IP isn't visible due to the BGP changes, and thus
> it considers the next-hop for the route unreachable.
> 

without bgp running is when a host on the 2600A lan couldn't hit a host
on the 2600B lan, but the 2600A router could get that host on the 2600B
lan just fine - my concern is why the 2600A wasn't following the static
route to the 10/8 network which lives on the 2600B lan (except for the
10.1.7.0/24 that comprises the serial link between the two)

thanks

> gert
> -- 
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>                                                           
//www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                            
gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025                       
gert.doering at physik.tu-muenchen.de



"Walk with me through the Universe,
 And along the way see how all of us are Connected.
 Feast the eyes of your Soul,
 On the Love that abounds.
 In all places at once, seemingly endless,
 Like your own existence."
     - Stephen Hawking -