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, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --