I'm sure this has been asked before :) But are there any known issues when using an exit interface in a route statement as opposed to a next hop address?
I have had an issue this morning after a router change whereby some hosts were able to access a web server and some were unable to. My route statement to the web server was pointing to an exit interface and when this was changed to next hop, all users were able to access it. It is very puzzling!
Please provide you configuration with ip route via interface.
Actually it depends on the interface - if it's GRE or PPP or FR p2p interface - that is fine, if it's Ethernet - it's a poor configuration. As router will have to resolve L2 address per destination IP-address it's sending traffic for.
Thanks for the clarification that it is a point to point tunnel and that the route was ip route x.x.x.x x.x.x.x tunX. I do not see a problem with that and am puzzled at your description in the original post that some users had a problem and that the problem was resolved when you changed the static route. Is it possible that there was some kind of problem with the tunnel and that the new version of the static route was not going through that tunnel?
This is actually a pretty cool feature, i didn't even know it existed until I was looking for a solution to advertise a subnet (prefix in BGP talk), only if a certain condition existed. This is exactly what conditional advertisements does
j ai une question j ai achete un routeur cisco 887VA-k9 , je le configuré avec la configuration ci- dessous
si je le lier avec mon pc portable sur l un de ses ports directement ça marche toute est bien ( la connexion internet + m...
Attached policy provides CLI access to the Cisco 4G router over text messaging. Two files are in the attached .tar file:
2. PDF with instructions on how to load and use the .tcl file.