×

Warning message

  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.
  • Cisco Support Forums is in Read Only mode while the site is being migrated.

Static route not accepted into the routing table

Unanswered Question
Sep 12th, 2003
User Badges:

I have a 6509 with MSFC2 and PFC2. We are accepting a route via eigrp of 10.95.116.0/22. This is known via an address on int. VLAN152. I have added a static route of 10.95.117.0/24 with a destination to a router on vlan 24. This static route does not get accepted into the routing table. When I do a "sho ip route 10.95.177.0" the results return the 10.95.116.0/22 path. Any ideas? Thanks.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
thisisshanky Fri, 09/12/2003 - 15:09
User Badges:
  • Purple, 4500 points or more

When I do a "sho ip route 10.95.177.0" the results return the 10.95.116.0/22 path. Any ideas? Thanks.


On the above sentence, you are looking for 10.95.177.0 which falls under 10.95.116.0/22. You should have given a "show ip route 10.95.117.0".


ruwhite Sat, 09/13/2003 - 05:44
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

I'm assuming the 177 in the show ip route is a typo--it should be 117. What's the actual nexthop you're using for the static? If you do a show ip route for that nexthop, is it in the table? If not, the static won't be installed.


It might be useful to have these posted:


-- show run | i static

-- show ip route

-- show ip route 10.95.117.0


Russ.W

edehaas Mon, 09/15/2003 - 07:33
User Badges:

Yes "177" was a typo. The nexthop for the static is in the table. Here is some additional info:


G03-MSFC1#sho run | i static

redistribute static

distribute-list 72 out static

redistribute static

distribute-list 61 out static


G03-MSFC1#sho ip route 10.95.10.181

Routing entry for 10.0.0.0/8

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0

Redistributing via eigrp 120, eigrp 1530

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* 10.94.10.187

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1


G03-MSFC1#sho ip route 10.95.117.0

Routing entry for 10.95.116.0/22

Known via "eigrp 1530", distance 90, metric 28672, type internal

Redistributing via eigrp 1530

Last update from 10.94.10.2 on Vlan153, 4d00h ago

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

10.94.10.1, from 10.94.10.1, 4d00h ago, via Vlan153

Route metric is 28672, traffic share count is 1

Total delay is 120 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit

Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes

Loading 1/255, Hops 2

* 10.94.10.2, from 10.94.10.2, 4d00h ago, via Vlan153

Route metric is 28672, traffic share count is 1

Total delay is 120 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit

Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1500 bytes

Loading 1/255, Hops 2


Thanks.

deilert Mon, 09/15/2003 - 08:23
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

Ok you are putting in the static router then redistributing it into EIGRP , When this happens all all other routers except the router where the static route is coonfigured the route will show up as an external eigrp route with an AD of 170. The sh ip route above is being learned from 10.94.10.2 with an AD of 90, this route is being used because it has a lower AD than the /24 even though it is more specific.

rjackson Mon, 09/15/2003 - 08:37
User Badges:
  • Bronze, 100 points or more

But shouldn't the MSFC show both routes? Does it? Show us the static route statement and a show ip route to the next hop in that statement.


isnt the real problem that the networks overlap? The net in the static route is a host in the learned network. If it was a host specific route it would work but since it is not, and it doesnt have the same mask as the other route, the router is igoring it.

I agree. Since the two networks have different prefix lengths and different AD, I would think they would both be placed in the routing table.


Is is possible eigrp auto-summary is messing things up? Maybe making sure no auto-summary is enabled under the eigrp routing process would help.


My $.02


edehaas Mon, 09/15/2003 - 15:07
User Badges:

Thanks for all the posts on this. From what I can tell the post from jackson was correct. I resubnetted my destination route and the entry now shows up.


Thanks!

Actions

This Discussion