Re: Default route pointing to an interface or next hop IP

From: Jay Hennigan (jay@west.net)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 05:14:51 GMT-3

Next message: Phil: "Re: 3550 Vs. 2948G-L3"
Previous message: Yigit Zorlu: "RE: IP TELEPHONY"
Maybe in reply to: Joe Chang: "Re: Default route pointing to an interface or next hop IP"
Next in thread: MADMAN: "Re: Default route pointing to an interface or next hop IP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Joe Chang wrote:

> 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.

True for point-to-point interfaces. Not necessarily so for multipoint
or broadcast interfaces.

-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net
NetLojix Communications, Inc.  -  http://www.netlojix.com/
WestNet:  Connecting you to the planet.  805 884-6323
.

Next message: Phil: "Re: 3550 Vs. 2948G-L3"
Previous message: Yigit Zorlu: "RE: IP TELEPHONY"
Maybe in reply to: Joe Chang: "Re: Default route pointing to an interface or next hop IP"
Next in thread: MADMAN: "Re: Default route pointing to an interface or next hop IP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:15 GMT-3