PBR vs static routing

[#1]

Hi all, Please someone help me regarding the following issue: If policy based routing has got priority over static routes in routing table, why in load sharing article in KC ,it has been mentioned that two static routes must have the same distance value? Regards, Kamyar

[rwpatterson]

The way to prioritize routing is by setting a priority value in the CLI. This only works if all routes involved are the same distance. Any shorter distance will take a higher priority naturally. Someone correct me if I' m wrong.

[UkWizard]

Bob, thats correct i believe, its check distance first then priority. But this question has no point in my opinion? as not really sure why you are asking? Regardless of distance on static routes, policy based routing takes precedence. So think of it as, traffic gets checked against any PBR' s and THEN hits the statics. That KC says to use the same distance on the two static routes, so both are in the routing table, this is for automatic failover purposes. Although, from experience, have a lower distance on the second link still seems to work as expected in the event of a primary wan link down anyway. I just think its more of a break in traffic, because the second interfaces route has to be populated in the routing table. Phew, hope you get all that.

[#4]

thank you UkWizard, from your post i realized that, 1-two static routes with the same disatnce,are JUST(but not related to load balancing) for failover purposes,if ping server is enabled before, 2-whatever distance is for static routes ,policy based routing has precedence over those distances, is that right or not? Best, Kamyar