From: Daniel Kutchin (daniel@kutchin.com)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2007 - 14:00:09 ART
"Frog" ---
Specifying just the interface in the "ip route" statement makes sense only
for point-to-point interfaces. You are not being kind to the router, if you
point the static route to a broadcast interface because it can stress the
memory and CPU, since ARP requests must be sent out for each new destination
matching the static route.
On the other hand, you want to be more deterministic as well as create some
redundancy by specifying both a numerical next-hop, and the directly
connected interface.
Read the *new* (as from IOSv12.3T) Usage Guidelines for the "ip route"
command here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios124/124cr/hirp_r
/rte_pih.htm#wp1134595
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Sent: Freitag, 20. Juli 2007 16:02
To: Radioactive Frog
Cc: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: IP route command format
This is useful if the next hop address is not directly connected, prompting
a recursive lookup. The "interface" in ip route command ensures traffic for
the prefix will only be sent if the recursive lookup identifies that
interface as the outgoing interface to the next hop.
HTH
Ben
On 7/20/07, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Let's assume, the following is an example:
>
>
> R1--------------------------------------R2
>
> R1 WAN IP=192.168.1.1/30 (serial 0)
> R2 WAN IP=192.168.1.1/30 (serial 0)
>
> What is the benifit if I put the following route in the routing table on
> r1
> and r2:
>
> R1 router:
> ---------------
> ip route < R2 LAN ip add> <mask> serial 0 192.168.1.2
>
> R2 router:
> ---------------
> ip route < R1 LAN ip add> <mask> serial 0 192.168.1.1
>
>
> Kinda sort of double gateway e.g. serial0 and next hop.
>
> When should we worry about putting two type of next hop address?
>
>
>
> Frog
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:41 ART