Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

More precise static route not in routing table

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

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

7 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

New Member

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

Dominic

Can you post

1) config of 3750

2) output of "sh ip route" from 3750

Jon

New Member

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

Hall of Fame Super Blue

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

New Member

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

New Member

Re: More precise static route not in routing table

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

180
Views
0
Helpful
7
Replies
CreatePlease to create content