Static route!

Unanswered Question
Jul 23rd, 2007

Hi,

Assuming that there are 2 routers R1 and R2 connected through fa0/0(IP-10.5.4.5/30) on R1 and fa0/1(IP-10.5.4.6/30) on R2.I want to configure a static route on R1 to R2'LAN 10.5.6.0/24.I want R1 to see this static route as the most reliable route.

Which command should I use :

ip route 10.5.6.0 255.255.255.0 fa0/0

or

ip route 10.5.6.0 255.255.255.0 10.5.4.6

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 4 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Jon Marshall Mon, 07/23/2007 - 06:09

Hi

To all practical purpose it shouldn't make a lot of difference. I would personally use the second one

ip route 10.5.6.0 255.255.255.0 10.5.4.6

HTH

Jon

Richard Burts Mon, 07/23/2007 - 06:17

Laurentiu

I would go a step further than Jon and say that in terms of appearing reliable the 2 versions of the static route are exactly the same. Some people believe (and there are some books that say it) that a static route using an interface has a better administrative distance than a static specifying a next hop. But this is not correct. Both versions of static route have administrative distance of 1.

And I believe that we need a stronger statement about the version of static route with next hop specified being better than static route with interface specified, especially if the interface is a LAN interface. On point to point serial interfaces both work fine. But on a LAN interface the static route with interface specified will have to ARP for each destination address. This becomes dependent on whether the neighbor router has enabled proxy ARP or not. And assuming that proxy ARP is enabled, it makes the router work harder, makes the ARP table larger. So especially when the interface is a LAN interface the static route specifying next hop address is better. (and perhaps best of all would be a static route which specifies both interface and next hop).

HTH

Rick

Actions

This Discussion