Re: loopback0 vs. null0

From: Kevin M. Woods (kev@xxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 12:55:12 GMT-3


   
Andrew,

Do you know how recent this change was made?

Thanx

Kevin

// Null interfaces used to be process switched (obvious drawback) while
// loopbacks were fast switched. Now, they are both fast switched.
//
// At 07:39 AM 7/31/00 -0700, Kevin M. Woods wrote:
// >I would think this is only true because loopbacks don't send ICMP unreachab
les,
// >thus a performance improvement. Adding "no ip unreachables" to null0 proba
bly
// >makes them equivalent.
// >
// >Kevin
// >
// >// Typically, I have seen black hole routes configured as:
// >//
// >// ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 null0
// >//
// >// Recently, I read somewhere that if you point them to a loopback you will
 get
// >// better performance.
// >//
// >// ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 lo0
// >//
// >// Unfortunately, I have lost the reference. Does anyone agree with this,
and
// >// if so, can you explain the details as to why?
// >//
// >// Thanks for any information!
// >// Cheryl



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:59 GMT-3