Hub and spoke routing issue

[Iloveyou]

i have a hub with configuration similar to this:

ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1

Is there any way to simplify the static route configuration so that i dont have to key in so many of them (if possible)?

[matthew2587]

Could you just do a default route to 10.0.0.1?

[MHM Cisco World]

why not running IGP between Hub & Spoke 
the best is EIGRP 
MHM

[Rob Ingram]

@Iloveyou if you want to use static routes then you can use a summary route such as 192.168.0.0/22 to cover all the networks.

ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.252.0 10.0.0.1

Ideally you'd use a dynamic routing protocol.

[Iloveyou]

Problem is they are from different spokes. you cannot summarise them like that.

a subnet is a subnet. 

[Joseph W. Doherty]

---

@Iloveyou wrote:

Problem is they are from different spokes. you cannot summarise them like that.

a subnet is a subnet. 

---

Ah, but your OP shows all using the same next hop.  If that's the case, they can be summarized.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

The prior 3 replies are all good.

Possibly as @matthew2587 suggests you might replace all your static routes with one static default route .  If that's too inclusive, you can still have other more specific routes going to specific destinations.

I.e.

rather than:

ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
.
.
ip route 192.168.200.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.201.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.2
ip route 192.168.202.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.3

have:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.201.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.2
ip route 192.168.202.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.3

What @Rob Ingram suggests is a more granular variant, but you need to be care about what you're summarizing.  For example, his ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.252.0 10.0.0.1 would be the equivalent of:

ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
ip route 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1

BTW, you can combine both of the above approaches.

@MHM Cisco World suggests using dynamic routing.  Personally, I prefer using dynamic routing anytime there's more than just a few static routes.  Dynamic routing can be a bit more involved to configure, but often it's much easier to maintain, as you don't need to add a new static route to multiple routers.  It also has other advantages, being "dynamic".

[MHM Cisco World · Accepted solution]

for each Spoke there are more than one static route, and you face issue in routing 
it will be happy day in work LoL...
IGP is the best solution 

MHM

[Joseph W. Doherty]

---

@MHM Cisco World wrote:

for each Spoke there are more than one static route, and you face issue in routing 
it will be happy day in work LoL...
IGP is the best solution 

MHM

---

Well OP has:

"i have a hub with configuration similar to this:"

With 3 sample routes all showing same next hop.  If that's correct, such would usually only make sense for networks upstream of the hub (or each spoke).  If issue is hub to spoke networks, wouldn't expect same next hop.  If same next hop, just overlooked in what was posted, than agreed, an IGP would be the approach.