From: Church, Chuck (cchurch@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 11:00:33 GMT-3
Frame relay is by nature an NBMA topology. Even though the subints are
point to point, it still probably won't work with next-hop interface. Did
you see 'encapsultion failed' messages on a debug? Did you use frame maps
or interface DLCI statements?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Dan Pontrelli
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:56 AM
To: Hansang Bae; CCIELAB@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Next hop interface vs. Next hop IP (static routes)
This is a point-to-point frame with a /30.
Static route pointed to next hop interface but it didn't work until I
pointed it to the next hop IP.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hansang Bae" <hbae@nyc.rr.com>
To: <CCIELAB@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Next hop interface vs. Next hop IP (static routes)
> At 05:09 PM 10/2/01 -0400, Dan Pontrelli wrote:
> >I usually point a static route to the next hop interface for
point-to-point
> >links, but I occasionally see that it doesn't work and I need to specify
the
> >next hop IP.
> >Can anyone explain this? From what I can see it looks like some kind of
bug
> >in the route-caching.
>
>
> Were these BRI interfaces? I found that many many BRi (and AUX for that
> matter) required that you turn off fast-switching in order for it to work.
>
> hsb
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:12 GMT-3