Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!boulder!daemon
From: cja@flamingo.nersc.gov (Cathy Aronson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Static Subnet Default
Message-ID: <27431@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 2 Oct 90 21:13:22 GMT
Sender: daemon@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Lines: 37


	From cja Tue Oct  2 12:22:04 1990
	To: cja@flamingo.nersc.gov, vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU
	Subject: Re: Static Subnet Defaults..
	Status: R

	I have seen that problem too, Vince.  I have seen a route known
	via RIP (has a RIP metric, and distance when I do a show route),
	but it says that it is known via IGRP.   

	---Cathy



	>From vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU Mon Oct  1 21:34:51 1990
	Return-Path: <vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
	Received: from Valinor.Stanford.EDU by flamingo.nersc.gov (4.1/SMI-4.0)
		id AA12412; Mon, 1 Oct 90 21:34:50 PDT
	Received: by Valinor.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
		id AA09640; Mon, 1 Oct 90 21:37:49 -0700
	Date: Mon, 1 Oct 1990 21:37:48 PDT
	From: Vince Fuller <vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
	To: cja@flamingo.nersc.gov (Cathy Aronson)
	Cc: cisco@spot.Colorado.EDU
	Office: Pine Hall 167, (415) 723-6860
	Subject: Re: Static Subnet Defaults.. 
	In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 30 Sep 90 17:32:20 PDT 
	Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.654842268.vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
	Status: RO

	Actually, there would appear to be a much more general problem that under
	8.1 the router becomes very confused over which routing process is the source
	of a route (at least according to "show route xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx". It does seem
	to get correct metric information, etc., but seems to frequently tag routes
	with the wrong protocol instance.

		--Vince