so if both are configured on a 3750 for example, there is no harm done? On Jan 12, 2008 6:25 PM, Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Someone mentioned that configuring both commands on the same > router/switch > >> causes trouble, i wonder if someone can help me understand why? > >> > >> 1) ip route 0.0.0.0 next-hop > >> 2) ip default-gateway next-hop > > > > Why do you *want* to configure both? 1 is supposed to be used for an L3 > > box (router), 2 is supposed to be used for an L2 box (switch). > > AFAIK, ip default-gateway is only used when IP routing is off/unsupported. > It can be useful if a device ends up booting into boot IOS that doesn't > support routing (like some of the older run from flash platforms during a > software upgrade where you have to reboot from ROM, download new code to > flash, and then boot the new code). I've got lots of gear with both a > default route and an ip default-gateway and no problems. > > > If the interface in question is a broadcast medium (Ethernet), the > router > > doesn't know the next-hop address, resulting in a high rate of ARPs. > This > > has been dicussed on the list many times before, and the advice is > simple: > > Don't do it! > > It can work...but its very delicate and really pisses people off when > someone with more clue is asked to take over management of the network. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis | I route > Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ > http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp<http://www.lewis.org/%7Ejlewis/pgp>for PGP > public key_________ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
