 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Hi,
There could be a contradiction in this article. For instance, the article reads, "Directly connected routes have an administrative distance of 0." Yet, in the subsection titled verifying administrative distance, it reads, "Directly connected routes have an administrative distance of 1".
Both these statements cannot be true. For further explanation, please see the law of non-contradiction.
The context of the example below suggests that the topic is discussing static routes, but this has been edited at some point to refer to directly connected routes. I am changing the article now.
--Hrbm14 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the release notes of Cisco documentation for IOS 12.2 variants, as well as Cisco Press books, and have not been able to verify this claim. If this claim was true, it is difficult to verify because the documentation for it appears to have been buried or deleted.
Chapter 10, section 3 “Administrative Distance” in Network Warrior by Gary Donahue (first edition) from 2007 does appear to say something similar, saying “A static route to a connected interface has an administrative distance of 0, and is the only route that will override a normal static route”.
The errata for that edition of the book does not suggest that it is wrong. The problem is I don’t want to use that as a source because official documentation is much more preferable – as just one example, there is a Cisco Press certification guide book currently with 80 pages of errata. So official documentation is probably better.
I’m going to go ahead and remove the statement, but if anyone thinks it should be put in, please respond.
Another option could be using the Gary Donahue source, or perhaps you might know where to verify this claim in the Cisco documentation for IOS 12.2, for example. Stephenamills (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
