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

[Tim Bulger]

Thanks, but we are discussing static routes, not BGP learned routes.
Obviously recursive next hop lookup is necessary for BGP as that is how the
protocol is designed.  

Wei's example clearly illustrates different behavior between IOS versions
regarding static routes.  In the 12.0 example, there is no recursive next
hop lookup taking place for the static.  In the 12.3 example, there is.  

The Cisco document on static routes indicates that it was last updated in
September of 2004.

Regards,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at greenie.muc.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:09 AM
To: Tim Bulger
Cc: 'Nick Shah'; chooweikeong at pacific.net.sg; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Different behaviour for static route on different IOS?

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 07:51:37PM -0800, Tim Bulger wrote:
> Since when could you have a static route with a next hop which is not 
> on a network directly connected to the router?!

Since always (on real routers).  

Otherwise iBGP will not work, as you usually get the BGP routes with a
next-hop value that is "somewhere else" (like "the loopback interface of the
egress router", or even "the IP of the external eBGP peer" etc., depending
on the specific setup and the usage of next-hop-self).

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 at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de