Re: Simple config issues [7:70482] posted 06/11/2003
>>>> Anil Gupte 6/11/03 11:08:59 AM >>>
>> Do you have a route to x.x.x.x?
>Is that not what I am doing with the statement
No, you're creating a default route to x.x.x.x. This is not what we're
referring to. We're saying that x.x.x.x has to be reachable before the
router will install your default route. Since you don't have the router
connected to anything, x.x.x.x is not reachable and the static default route
will not show up in the routing table.
Hopefully, when you connect your router to the network it will learn a route
to 63.x.x.193 via RIP. At that point, your static default will also enter
the routing table.
>ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 x.x.x.x
>Or do I need to do something more?
>Incidentally, the router is not connected to anything - I want to have it
>fully pre-configured because we cannot afford to be down for more than a
>minutes. Will it only establish the routes after it connects? To clarify
>(I cannot disclose the actual IPs of course), here is what I did:
>ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 63.x.x.193
>ip address 63.x.x.194 255.255.255.248
>So what did I miss?
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Dennis"
>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:22 PM
>Subject: RE: Simple config issues [7:70482]
>> Do you have a route to x.x.x.x? If your router does not have a route to
>> x.x.x.x it will not install the static route in the routing table since
>> next hop is unreachable. As far as RIP goes you are seeing the correct
>> behavior. Remember that RIP is classful.
>> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
>> Anil Gupte wrote:
>> > I am trying to configure a 2600 router. I have two problems:
>> > 1. I issued the default route command
>> > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 x.x.x.x
>> > I can see this under ip classless in "sh run"
>> > However, when I do a "sh ip route", it does not appear there
>> > and in fact
>> > says:
>> > Gateway of last resort is not set
>> > 2. I configured it for RIP using
>> > router rip
>> > network 63.x.x.0
>> > and it shows as
>> > 220.127.116.11
>> > in "sh run". Is this correct behavior? Until now I had only
>> > dealt with
>> > networks in the Class C range. This is a Class C assigned to
>> > us but by the
>> > first octet you can see that it is from a Class A range.
>> > Any help or pointers will be muchly appreciated.
>> > Thanx,
>> > Anil Gupte
Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx