On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, jlewis@lewis.org wrote:
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
As others are saying... it isn't "local". It's not "local" unless in the same subnet. Physical topology often correlates with higher layers, but it's not strictly 1:1.
Manually configuring a static route in router A would achieve the result: ip route 172.16.16.0 255.255.255.0 fa0/0
Why are we doing basic IP routing 101 on NANOG?
OK, since it's so basic why don't you explain how to have router A dynamically learn from router B that there is a new subnet on the local ethernet?
Don't route IP blocks to the ethernet. That's using ARP as your routing protocol and it's horribly fragile. I've seen one ISP do that (they were very technically challenged) and it's a setup that broke way too easily.
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