is network as
> connected. This statement would be redundant and unneccessary. (Unless
you
> were redistributing static routes, but that's a different keg o' worms.)
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Multiple default gateways, same result?
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:28:46 -0500
Hey all,
For study purposes I have configured a 'remote' router (Cisco 2501) with
the following:
E0: 10.48.2.1 255.255.255.0
S0.1: 10.201.0.73 255.255.255.252 point-to-point (FR @
Just on a
Like Hubert was saying, the route for ethernet is redundant.
But just on the side note, if you're pointing to another network of
the e0 eg. ip route 123.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 e0, you want to make sure the
next hop router on e0 will answer proxy arp. Because that's what the
router arps for
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> For study purposes I have configured a 'remote' router (Cisco 2501) with
> the following:
>
> E0: 10.48.2.1 255.255.255.0
>
> S0.1: 10.201.0.73 255.255.255.252 point-to-point (FR @ 128K CIR)
>
> The 'corporate' router (Cisco 3640) i
If you specify the next hop IP address, then the static route would have admin
distance = 1 (so the "1" at the end of your config is redundant)
If you specify the out-going interface, then it would show up as connected in
routing table.
There is no point to put the "ip route 10.48.2.0 255.255.25
Hey all,
For study purposes I have configured a 'remote' router (Cisco 2501) with
the following:
E0: 10.48.2.1 255.255.255.0
S0.1: 10.201.0.73 255.255.255.252 point-to-point (FR @ 128K CIR)
The 'corporate' router (Cisco 3640) is configured as follows:
E0: 10.1.1.2 255.255.0.0
S0/0.1: 10.2
6 matches
Mail list logo
