Solved: More precise static route not in routing table

Dominic Stalder (old profile) · ‎06-22-2009

Hi there

"we" have a Catalyst 3750 switch on which we configured 2 static routes. See attachment for the logical design.

We configured the following static routes:

ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.11

ip route 192.168.64.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.12

In the routing table we only see the B-class network, the 192.168.0.0 /20 route. In my opinion, there should be both routes because there is no summarization cause we have 2 different gateways. The routes will be redistributed into 2 EIGRP processes, but this should not be the problem.

Does anybody ever had this problem or do you see any misconfiguration?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Regards

Dominic

Jon Marshall · ‎06-22-2009

Dominic

Don't have 3750's to test with but using 3700 routers in dynamips i replicated what you have and it works as expected ie. both routes in routing table.

Obviously your setup is probably a lot more complicated. The EIGRP processes - are you peering with the 2 routers in your diagram with these EIGRP processes ?

Jon

View solution in original post

Jon Marshall · ‎06-22-2009

Dominic

"In the routing table we only see the B-class network, the 192.168.0.0 /20 route"

Do you mean 192.168.0.0 /16 route ?

And are you referring to the routing table on the 3750 ?

Are both 10.0.0.11 & 10.0.0.12 pingable from the 3750 ?

Jon

Dominic Stalder (old profile) · ‎06-22-2009

Hi Jon

sorry, you're absolutley right, it is 192.168.0.0 /16, I attached the corrected design (in the text I can't correct it).

Yes I'm referring to the cat 3750 routing table and both next hops are reachable (pingable).

Regards

Dominic

Jon Marshall · ‎06-22-2009

Dominic

Can you post

1) config of 3750

2) output of "sh ip route" from 3750

Jon

Dominic Stalder (old profile) · ‎06-22-2009

Jon

here we go. In the config the 10.0.0.11 and 10.0.0.12 are replaced by 172.21.0.11 and 172.21.0.12.

Regards

Jon Marshall · ‎06-22-2009

Dominic

Don't have 3750's to test with but using 3700 routers in dynamips i replicated what you have and it works as expected ie. both routes in routing table.

Obviously your setup is probably a lot more complicated. The EIGRP processes - are you peering with the 2 routers in your diagram with these EIGRP processes ?

Jon

Dominic Stalder (old profile) · ‎06-22-2009

Hi Jon

we also replicated the situation in dynamips and it work too.

I have to doublecheck with the customer, I don't know if they are integrated in the eigrp process.

I will give you feedback.

Dominic

Dominic Stalder (old profile) · ‎06-23-2009

Hi Jon

no the two routers are not participating in the eigrp processes, these are routers where we don't have any access.

Regards

Dominic