My customer is running DMVPN with many static routes and EIGRP. He has configured static summary static routes that are not being placed in the routing table. The static routes are not pointing to an interface but rather a next hop; my contention (I asked customer to confirm) is the next hop is not always reachable and hence, the reason the summary static routes are not put into the routing table, essentially they are floating static routes (w/ an administrative distance of 254). I believe a possible fix for my customer's issue is to modify his static routes to use an interface thereby lowering the 1 which will ensure the static routes will be placed into the routing table.
In my research I came across this routing administrative distance table pictured above. I see NHRP is listed as a "routing protocol" with an administrative distance of 250. Is NHRP considered a routing protocol and thereby is able to inject routes into the routing table? If the answer is yes, do I need to have the customer to change his summary static route to include an administrative distance of say 251, so the static is a lower preference than "NHRP routes?"
Thanks!
John
