Answers: IPv4 Static Routes 3
By certskills
Static IPv4 routes are a great way to learn how IP routing really works. The configuration is meant to be straightforward, but constructing the commands yourself makes you think like a router, which is a great way to learn. The requirements are listed back in the earlier post, and this one shows the answer, with minimal explanations unless you ask. As always, it’s best to start with the problem statement! Details below the fold!
Static Routes for LAN Subnets, Plus Extra Work
Check the original post for the requirements. Here sit the answers! Ask questions if you have them.
By the way, if you build this in your lab, you should be able to ping the LAN IP address of the other routers in the triangle successfully.
Figure 2: Router Triangle with IP Addresses
Example 1: R1 Static Routes
|
1 2 |
ip route 172.16.2.0 255.255.254.0 10.1.1.130 ip route 10.1.89.0 255.255.255.128 10.1.88.130 |
Example 2: R2 Static Routes
|
1 2 |
ip route 10.1.87.0 255.255.255.128 10.1.1.129 ip route 10.1.89.0 255.255.255.128 172.16.0.2 |
Example 3: R3 Static Routes
|
1 2 |
ip route 172.16.2.0 255.255.254.0 Serial0/0/1 ip route 10.1.87.0 255.255.255.128 Serial0/0/0 |
By certskills
Write a comment
6 Comments
View comments
Wendell, those static routes could have used exit interfaces instead, by passing the recursive lookup, since they are point to point, no?
oops…i see you did it both ways…my bad.
Saw your other post two, so I know you get the important part. But briefly for any others out there… from a purely learning perspective, sure, either way to configure the routes is fine. However, I did try and paint you into a corner and force one way or other in the instructions – requirement 1 said that R1/R2 refer to an IP address, and that R3 refers to an interface. Stylistically, I’m hoping to make the VM’s have a single “right” answer if you follow it literally, but the goal is to learn and practice.
I fully expect that when I do this kind of post to get queries like “couldn’t you have done such and so…” – which is kinda the point. 😉
Later…
Wendell
my bad again…im notoriously bad at reading instructions…thanks for doing these mini tuts.
hi Wendell,
hmm im guessing we were supposed to calculate the subnet id for the destinations instead of just using the subnet IP address one listed for the interfaces. woops. atleast routing concept was solid. thanks for the practice problems!
Sure thing, Ziad! Glad you’re enjoying them. And yes, to configure a route to a subnet, the first parameter after “ip route” is the subnet ID, not an address in the subnet.
Wendell