Abdul,
             With what you've got in mind this configuration could present
some problems.

Ok, as Howard would say, "What is the problem you are trying to solve?"

The reason this would create problems is the router will only use these two
routes
in the event the destination of the packet is unknown.  In the case of
multiple
equal-cost  paths protocols like EIGRP and OSPF the traffic would load
balanced across both paths.  In answering your question the first only way
to do this
would be to allow whatever routing protocol you're using advertise a route
to the specific
 network(this is why the protocols were created)  - Let then do their job
:-).....

Why would you want to do this.....?  but if you do....
The only other way I can think of is through policy based routing, or using
the
default network statement for the route to network 1, and the ip route
statement
 for network 2.

HTH

Nigel..


----- Original Message -----
From: Rahman, Abdul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 4:30 PM
Subject: default routes


> All:
>
> I know it is possible to place more than one default route in a router.
> What are some basic general issues with doing this, considering, that
> no routing loops are present.
>
> I am speaking of say:
>
> router 1# ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 <interface 1>    ... going to network 1
> router 1# ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 <interface 2>    ... going to network 2
>
> In the case of packets being forwarded to this router 1 would the routes
> that
> are not directly connect be sent out both interfaces?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Abdul
>
> A. Rahman, Ph.D.
> Product Engineer
> Digex, Inc.
> (240)456-3119
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to