From: Erick B. (erickbe@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 11:59:37 GMT-3
Static routes to interfaces rely on proxy-arp to get
next hop IP. I'm not sure how well this works over WAN
interfaces and haven't really looked into it much. I
always use IP addresses for the next-hop so I know
where its going for sure. When it fails to work, it's
usually the other router isn't a Cisco and has
proxy-arp disabled. At least thats my experience.
--- Dan Pontrelli <dp595@optonline.net> wrote:
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:12 GMT-3