Not all static routes were created equal

In his excellent question, Matt reminded me of (almost prehistoric) days when static routes pointing to a connected interface (not IP next-hop) had administrative distance zero. I also remembered that we've had interesting routing problems as those static routes actually behaved like connected routes (and were redistributed into routing protocols with redistribute connected command).

This is no longer the case (and hasn't been since at least IOS release 12.2 ... I wasn't able to find a box running an older release to test it), all static routes now have default administrative distance one, and behave like they should (they never get redistributed with redistribute connected command).

For example, with the router configuration ...

ip route serial 0/0.1
ip route

... both routes have identical administrative distance:

POP#show ip route entry for, supernet
Known via "static", >distance 1, metric 0 (connected), candidate default path
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Serial0/0.1
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
POP#show ip route
Routing entry for
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

Searching through Cisco's Bug toolkit turned up only a single relevant bug: CSCdi38232 (redistribute connected should not redistribute static route to OSPF), which was fixed in IOS release 10.2 and 10.3, that's probably also when they've fixed the administrative distance.


  1. In a cisco press book it points out that the administrative distance was 0 because it was directly connected
  2. the link is
  3. As I wrote, that was very long time ago, it's an interesting bit of IOS trivia, but somewhat irrelevant for the current CCNA students.
  4. Dear Mr Pepelnjak
    In Wikipedia is posted that Administrative distance of Static route out an interface is 1, but "Actual administrative distance is recognized somewhere between 0 and 1. This AD is more trustworthy than 1 but less trustworthy than 0."
    Is it true?
  5. Never tried it. I guess it would also be IOS release dependent.
Add comment