Static Routes won't load on 1841

Unanswered Question
Jun 5th, 2007
User Badges:

Hi,

I have a problem with a 1841 router at one of our remote sites.


The hardware is as below:


Cisco 1841 (revision 6.0) with 237568K/24576K bytes of memory.

Processor board ID FCZ104211TW

2 FastEthernet interfaces

2 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Modules

DRAM configuration is 64 bits wide with parity disabled.

191K bytes of NVRAM.

62720K bytes of ATA CompactFlash (Read/Write)


It is running:


Cisco IOS Software, 1841 Software (C1841-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(3f)


When this router starts up, it loads all the startup-config commands. When I do a sh run the entries are all in memory. The problem is that the static routes put in by startup do not show in the routing table, all that shows is the 2 connected networks on the Ethernet interfaces.


If I try to manualy enter the routes again with conf t and Ctrl-Z, it accepts the commands but does not put the entries in the routing table.


This router is being used to create VPN tunnels between various sites. I have a number of similar routers (mostly 2811 with ADSL cards) set up to do the same (almost identical configs apart from name, ip address, etc) and they all work fine.


I am not sure if I am missing something fundemental here! Any help appreciated.


Nik

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
mohammedmahmoud Tue, 06/05/2007 - 05:34
User Badges:
  • Green, 3000 points or more

Hi,


This is most probably due to that the next-hop or the outgoing interface that the route is pointing to is either not reachable or down .


If you can past the static routes and your interfaces (show ip interface brief) we can check it out.



HTH, please do rate all helpful replies,

Mohammed Mahmoud.

nik.sharp Tue, 06/05/2007 - 05:56
User Badges:

The next-hop is working fine, I can reach it from this router and others in the network.


All interfaces are fine as they can be seen from other routers.


The problem is the 1841 won't put the static routes in the routing table

mohammedmahmoud Tue, 06/05/2007 - 06:08
User Badges:
  • Green, 3000 points or more

Hi,


Can you please post your configuration.



BR,

Mohammed Mahmoud.


nik.sharp Tue, 06/05/2007 - 06:51
User Badges:

Mohammed,


Attached is the config. I have taken out some details but it should give you the general idea.


If I do a sh ip route on this router I get the following


Gateway of last resort is 80.255.249.XXX to network 0.0.0.0


80.0.0.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets

C 80.255.249.xxx is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1

172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets

C 172.16.164.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0

S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 80.255.249.xxx



I hope this is enough to go on, I have had to remove end octet of addresses and key info.


I have also run a debug ip routing static detail command and get the following, again modified.


*Jun 5 14:46:27.139: IP-Static: 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 80.255.249.xxx Path = 2 3 5 7, route table no change, recursive flag clear

*Jun 5 14:46:27.139: IP-Static: 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 84.12.12.xxx Path = 2 3 5 6 8, route table deleted, recursive flag clear

*Jun 5 14:46:27.139: IP-Static: 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 84.12.134.xxxPath = 2 3 5 6 8, route table deleted, recursive flag clear

*Jun 5 14:46:27.139: IP-Static: 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 84.12.134.xxx Path = 2 3 5 6 8, route table deleted, recursive flag clear

*Jun 5 14:46:27.139: IP-Static: 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 84.12.90.xxx Path = 2 3 5 6 8, route table deleted, recursive flag clear

*Jun 5 14:46:27.139: IP-Static: 192.168.8.0 255.255.255.0 81.193.248.xxx Path = 2 3 5 6 8, route table deleted, recursive flag clear


Any help is appreciated


Thanks

Nik



Richard Burts Tue, 06/05/2007 - 06:09
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2017 LAN, WAN

Nik


Mohammed made a very reasonable suggestion about the most likely source of the problem and a very reasonable request for additional information (paste the configuration of the static routes and the output of show ip interface brief, and posting the complete config would be even better). Your assertion that the nest hop is working fine is good but seeing the output would be more helpful. Please post the information that Mohammed requested so that we can help solve your issue.


HTH


Rick

nik.sharp Tue, 06/05/2007 - 06:59
User Badges:


Rick/Mohammed

In my haste, I missed the the line about static routes and sh ip int, sorry.


I have posted config and sh ip int br output is below


Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol

FastEthernet0/0 172.16.164.21 YES NVRAM up up

FastEthernet0/1 80.255.249.XXX YES NVRAM up up

NVI0 unassigned YES unset up up


Thanks again,

Nik

Richard Burts Tue, 06/05/2007 - 07:29
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2017 LAN, WAN

Nik


Thanks for the additional information. I see these static routes:

ip route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 84.12.12.xxx

ip route 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 84.12.134.xxx

ip route 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 84.12.134.xxx

ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 84.12.90.xxx

ip route 192.168.8.0 255.255.255.0 81.193.248.xxx

and note that they all have next hop addresses that are not on connected interfaces. So for them to work there must be something that makes them reachable. It would seem that the default route configured would make them reachable if it worked:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 80.255.249.xxx

and at this point I get puzzled. The output of show ip route that you posted along with the config indicates that the default route is in the routing table. I am puzzled that this did not make the other static route next hops reachable. I also note that the routing behavior is exactly the same with only the default route or with the other static routes if they were in the table because the routing decision is going to be to forward packets to the next hop 80.255.249.xxx. Perhaps IOS does not put them in the routing table since they are essentially superflous (reaching the next hop requires a recursive lookup and is dependent on the default route).


HTH


Rick

Actions

This Discussion