North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > My understanding is the route is valid as long as the interface is > up; just like adding a secondary IP on the interface. > If you are going through all this trouble, why not just secondary the interface, while you at it run HSRP or VRRP and provide some HA-ness for your LAN? > Ralph Doncaster > principal, IStop.com > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > > > Aha. > > > > So, if you route to a ethernet interface, it will try to arp for that > > address on that subnet, even without having a local address on the same > > subnet? > > > > This seems to me to be something you don't want to do. > > > > Is the entire route valid as long as the router can ARP for one of the > > addresses in the routed subnet? > > > > > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > > > > > I've been doing ip route statements going on 8 years now, and I can't > > > > imagine why ever -- and how it would even work -- you'd want to ip route a > > > > netblock with a next hop of a multi-access brandcast media. As in, the > > > > next hop is still truly undetermined. > > > > > > > > I guess I don't know this because I've never tried it. But, how does the > > > > router determine where to send the packets for a route statement as > > > > specified above (ip route a.b.c.d e.f.g.h f0/0) ? > > > > > > When you setup a secondary ip on an interface > > > int fa0/0 > > > ip address a.b.c.d e.f.g.h secondary > > > > > > How does it determine where to send the packets? ARP. > > > Which is the same as adding the route described above. > > > > > > -Ralph > > > > > > > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [email protected], latency, Al Reuben -- > > -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- > > > > > > >
|