[c-nsp] Verify static route next hop

[Justin Shore]

Whenever management assumes that they're also technical enough to be 
network engineers it's a sign of someone needing a new job.

Justin


Kevin Barrass wrote:
>  
> I will try a few more options with the static routing using SLA as
> below, Politics are never sensible in my last job I had a fight on every
> year to justify Cisco over netgear for our switches :0( is hard to
> convince managing directors who never need to have visibility over the
> network.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Kev
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "steve at ixreach.com"@packetrade.com
> [mailto:"steve at ixreach.com"@packetrade.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Wilcox
> Sent: 05 October 2007 11:13
> To: Kevin Barrass
> Cc: Adrian Chadd; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Verify static route next hop
> 
> This is one shortcoming of static routing, a 'feature' if you like..
> 
> Perhaps this lack of dynamic ability of the statics would help with the
> politics as to why routing is sensible? :)
> 
> Steve
> 
> On 5 Oct 2007, at 07:51, Kevin Barrass wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Cheers for the below iam testing this out now unfortunatly the routers
> 
>> and IOS we are using Cisco 2851 12.4(15)T1 BASE IP does not support 
>> the track command "track n rtr 1 reachability".
>> I have checked our IOS release and according to Cisco Feature 
>> Navigator this feature should be supported. But issueing the command 
>> track 123 ?
>> Gives the below options:
>>
>> (config)#track 123 ?
>>   interface    Select an interface to track
>>   ip           IP protocol
>>   list         Group objects in a list
>>   stub-object  Stub tracking object
>>   <cr>
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Kev
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adrian Chadd [mailto:adrian at creative.net.au]
>> Sent: 05 October 2007 07:13
>> To: Kevin Barrass
>> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Verify static route next hop
>>
>> What you want is "Reliable Static Routing Backup Using Object 
>> Tracking"
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5413/
>> products_feature_
>> guide09186a00801d862d.html
>>
>> * setup an SLA to ICMP ECHO ping an IP
>> * setup a "tracking object" to track an SLA entry
>> * setup a default route to only trigger when that "tracking object" is
> 
>> active
>>
>> Works a treat. Remember that ICMP ECHO to a connected interface might 
>> succeed if the connected interface goes down and you can reach the 
>> other end via another path. Use source interfaces in your SLA 
>> IpIcmpEcho entries and you should be fine.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, Kevin Barrass wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Iam looking into a problem where we have no option other than to use 
>>> static routes for political reasons ;0) Unfortunatly our core network
> 
>>> between layer 3 devices is a switched ethernet backbone.
>>>
>>> The problem we have is that if a next hop of a static route goes down
> 
>>> the static route stays valid as the outgoing interface to the next 
>>> hop
>>> is up.
>>>
>>> I was told that using the command "ip route static adjust-time" there
> 
>>> is some internal feature in IOS that checks the availability of the 
>>> next hop IP address but in testing this does not work. Can anyone 
>>> advise if I have miss read the below document.
>>>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1829/
>>> products_featur
>>> e_
>>> guide09186a00802801fe.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
>