Hi, On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:57:08AM -0500, Graham Wooden wrote: > Agreed on the ip proxy-arp, but if it makes the link work for the time being > ...
This would be VERY surprising - "ip proxy-arp" makes a difference only
if one of the devices sends ARP requests for IP addresses that are
off-link (specifically: that the router with "ip proxy-arp" knows to be
off-link and has a route for it).
Your routers on both sides shouldn't do any ARPing for off-link addresses
unless one of them has a static route pointing to the ethernet itself
("ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ethernet0" is a quite typical example).
dot1q-tagging the management interface sounds like a good plan, though :)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
pgpxhdZg2jk9B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
