[Re: [nsp] stupid question]

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:26:35PM -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 - 

"serial0/0" is about as specific as it can get (on a point to point
interface).

> but i will probably change it

Try to.

> > 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)

I think it is, for some reason, confused about the 10.1.7.2 address,
and as such refusing the whole route to the 10.0.0.0 network.  If
the gateway isn't known, IOS can't use the route.

So the default route strikes, and the packet bounces back to your
firewall.

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