Proxy arp will still send the data thro the other router tho, the only difference is now router B believes router A to be the destination station. Seems like your worse off than you were before. (Plus I hate proxy arp in non-SOHO environments!) Steve -- Stephen J. Wilcox BSc (Hons), CCNA, CCNP, CCIE wr. Technical Director, Telecomplete http://www.telecomplete.co.uk/ On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 12:15:40AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
OK, I'll bite.
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) ?
A cisco router with the default (ip proxy-arp) enabled on the interface will spend all its time doing arp/proxy-arp for the hosts and it will actually work believe it or not.
You'll notice massive cpu utilization.
People who do this tend to not have a lot of clue or notice when their cpu is spending all its time doing this... One should always turn proxy-arp off on your interfaces both internal and customer facing so they don't make your router bear the load because they can not configure their devices logically.
- Jared
So then what do you call a connected route (for an ethernet interface on a router)? If you use ethernet, at the edges of your network you HAVE to route IP blocks to the ethernet.
-Ralph
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --