[c-nsp] Different behaviour for static route on different IOS?

[Félix Izquierdo]

Are you using "ip classless" on both versions? Perhaps you was using 
classfull routing on 12.0 ( I think the default for that version ).


chooweikeong at pacific.net.sg wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> But how come the behaviour is different for the router running 12.0, which 
> also has the 192.168.16.0/21 route?
> 
> Thanks,
> Wei Keong
> 
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Nick Shah wrote:
> 
> 
>>That's because even though the 'specific' 192.168.16.48/30 is on
>>Serial5/0 which is shutdown, there is a 'summary/aggregate' prefix
>>192.168.16.0/21 being learnt from GigabitEthernet0/1
>>
>>If you want to know for sure do a show ip route 192.168.16.48
>>255.255.255.252 and it will indeed tell you that its "not in routing
>>table"
>>
>>rgds
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
>>chooweikeong at pacific.net.sg
>>Sent: Tuesday, 15 February 2005 2:04 PM
>>To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>Subject: [c-nsp] Different behaviour for static route on different IOS?
>>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Realise that there is a different behaviour for static route (next-hop
>>to
>>an interface ip) on IOS 12.3 and 12.0.
>>
>>As shown below, i've a static route next-hop to an interface ip, and the
>>
>>interface has been shutdown. For 12.0, the static route is not active,
>>but
>>for 12.3, the static route is active, even though the interface is down.
>>
>>Is this a 'new' feature? Since when is this feature introduced?
>>
>>Appreciate your feedback.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Wei Keong
>>
>>
>>IOS Ver 12.3(10)
>>----------------
>>
>>Serial5/0.1/1/3/1:8   192.168.16.49  YES manual administratively down
>>down
>>
>>ip route 10.0.200.120 255.255.255.252 192.168.16.50
>>
>>
>>
>>>sh ip route 10.0.200.120
>>
>>Routing entry for 10.0.200.120/30
>>  Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
>>  Redistributing via ospf 10
>>  Advertised by ospf 10 subnets
>>  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>>  * 192.168.16.50
>>      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>>
>>
>>
>>>sh ip route 192.168.16.50
>>
>>Routing entry for 192.168.16.0/21, supernet
>>  Known via "ospf 10", distance 110, metric 20, type extern 2, forward
>>metric 1
>>  Last update from 10.9.1.6 on GigabitEthernet0/1, 6d22h ago
>>  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>>  * 10.9.1.6, from 192.168.3.6, 6d22h ago, via GigabitEthernet0/1
>>      Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1
>>
>>
>>IOS Ver 12.0(22)
>>----------------
>>Serial6/3             192.168.16.49  YES manual administratively down
>>down
>>
>>ip route 10.0.200.120 255.255.255.252 192.168.16.50
>>
>>
>>>sh ip route 10.0.200.120
>>
>>% Subnet not in table
>>
>>
>>>sh ip route 192.168.16.50
>>
>>Routing entry for 192.168.16.0/21, supernet
>>  Known via "ospf 10", distance 110, metric 20, type extern 2, forward
>>metric 1
>>  Last update from 10.9.1.6 on GigabitEthernet0/3, 6d22h ago
>>  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>>  * 10.9.1.6, from 192.168.3.6, 6d22h ago, via GigabitEthernet0/3
>>      Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If
>>you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please
>>contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of
>>this communication or disclose anything about it.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
>