From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 02:38:33 GMT-3
You're doing nothing wrong by pointing a default or static route to a
physical interface. All routing table matches are resolved back to a
physical interface by the routing process (for example 10.1.1.20 is matched
to 10.1.1.0/24, 10.1.1.0/24 is resolved to advertising network 20.20.0.0/24,
then 20.20.0.0/24 is resolved to interface s0/0). Assigning a static route
to a physical interface is a shortcut around all that recursive resolution.
If you are having problems with DDR, take a look at the dialer-list to see
if default traffic is considered interesting traffic. I'm not sure how a
static route can conflict with HSRP because the proxy gateway is supposed to
be for hosts, not routers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil G. Legada" <nglegada@hotmail.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:08 PM
Subject: Default route pointing to an interface or next hop IP address
> Hello group,
>
> Until I now couldn't understand why a default or static route doesn't
always
> work when pointing to an interface. Been a victim of this a few times
> wherein during the staging process it works but on the actual
implementation
> it doesn't (on some instance it worked). Is there a hard written rule
here
> when to use the physical interface or not on a certain scenario ??? I
> usually encounter this problem with DDR (physical/dialer interfaces) or
HSRP
> on LAN's. Am I right to say here that when using the physical interface
> instead of the next hop IP address, the router would do an extra sort of
an
> ARP-ing process to resolve the next hop address ???
>
> Appreciate any feedback.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Neil
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:15 GMT-3