Re: YAFRIAQ (Yet Another Frame Relay Inverse ARP Question)

What surprises might you get, though? To me, it's just like having a
superfluous entry in an ARP (Ethernet/MAC) cache -- no harm. Am I
missing something?

I agree that it's cleaner/nicer/"better"/good practice/good karma --
BUT -- will we lose points if dynamic mappings are there?

cheers,
Dale

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Robert Steeneken <r.steeneken_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I would disable it always (when the lab allows me ofcource) just to know
> exactly what the mappings are. And I am not surprised by mappings that are
> dynamicly are formed. Just to be sure.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Dale Shaw <dale.shaw_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A hypothetical question..
>>
>> We all know that's good practice to disable F/R inverse-arp and nail
>> down your L3-L2 mappings, but if there was no task that required the
>> dynamic mappings to be disabled, and all the necessarily mappings for
>> the topology were statically mapped and functional, would we lose
>> points for the 'extra' dynamic mappings?
>>
>> Note I am not talking about the infamous "0.0.0.0" mappings -- they
>> can obviously cause operational headaches.
>>
>> Curious on the group's thoughts on this, but please include a reason
>> other than just "it's just the way I do it", for disabling F/R InARP,
>> if that's what you do.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Dale
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Apr 21 2009 - 18:36:24 ART