From: Jason Gardiner (gardiner@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 20 2001 - 14:24:02 GMT-3
That's why you set the statics to the interface rather than the next hop ip.
On Thursday 20 December 2001 11:58 am, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote:
> I haven't spun this up in the lab but I would think that if R1 was
> configured with "no ip route-cache" and was doing per-packet load-balancing
> you'd send every-other packet to R2. This would happen regardless of R2's
> up/down status. R1's interface associated with the static route is still
> up so the static route is still valid.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> vr4drvr .
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:37 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OT: Simple static route Q
>
>
> Here's a static routing question that I need answered. I do have theories,
> but I need a proof positive answer. Simple scenario.
>
>
> R2---10.1.1.0/24
> R1----|
> R3---10.1.1.0/24
>
> 3 routers are connected to an ethernet segment. R1 has 2 static routes to
> the 10.1.1.0/24 network pointing to the IP address of the next hop
> ethernets on R2 and R3, thereby providing load balancing and fault
> tolerance. My question is... if an ethernet interface on R2 was to go
> down, how does that affect the routing from R1 to the 10.1.1.0 network?
> For instance, will R1 drop half the traffic? How does the ARP cache on R1
> impact routing, or rather, how is routing impacted by the ARP cache? Will
> the static route through R2 get dropped so to speak?
>
> TIA.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:45 GMT-3