- iServices Development,
NNSD) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 4:35 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Yee, Jason
Subject: RE: ip route
For the load balancing issue, is it based on load or based on round robin ?
Thanks.
--
From: Yee, J
:15 PM
To: Benny Leong (HTHK - Senior Engineer II - iServices Development,
NNSD); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Yee, Jason
Subject: RE: ip route
The router either does per packet or per destination load balancing. If
process switching is the active switching path then the router will perform
per packet
:)
-Original Message-
From: Yee, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 2:14 PM
To: 'Atif Awan'; Benny Leong (HTHK - Senior Engineer II - iServices
Development, NNSD); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ip route
Sorry for per destination load balancing does it mea
NNSD)'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip route
It will do load balancing provided both links are of equal costs,
also the
type of routing protocols you used is also important
As for 2. I think it will stop routing thro 2.2.2.1 and fall back to
1.1.1.1
It will do load balancing provided both links are of equal costs, also the
type of routing protocols you used is also important
As for 2. I think it will stop routing thro 2.2.2.1 and fall back to 1.1.1.1
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
B
: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Yee, Jason'
Subject: RE: ip route
For the load balancing issue, is it based on load or based on round robin ?
Thanks.
--
From: Yee, Jason [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 4:42 PM
To:
x27;; 'Yee, Jason'
Subject: RE: ip route
For the load balancing issue, is it based on load or based on round robin ?
Thanks.
--
From: Yee, Jason [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 4:42 PM
To: 'Benny Leong (HTHK - Senio
vices
Development, NNSD)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ip route
Jason these statements will load balance and we are doing static
routing
here so other routing protocols running on the router will not
effect the
load balancing.
Regarding the second
ngineer II - iServices Development,
NNSD)'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip route
It will do load balancing provided both links are of equal costs, also the
type of routing protocols you used is also important
As for 2. I think it will stop routing thro 2.2.2.1 and fall back
Hi
It will perform load balancing on a per packet basis
If one of the links fails, packets WILL STILL BE ROUTED via that link.
Actually you will see half of your packets lost. Static Routes have a
weight of 1, i.e. they are highly believable.
You need a dynamic routing protocol, like EIGRP or O
If we consider static route , yes it will
load-balance;
( share count =1 )
router#sh run | include ip route
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 30.2.0.2
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 40.0.0.2
router#
router#sh ip route 10.0.0.0
Routing entry for 10.0.0.0/8
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
Rou
Hi Cory,
I haven't heard of that restriction, but one of my routers are LAN connected
to the default gateway router on its E0, so here's what I just did to test
the scenario:
2501-1#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
2501-1(config)#ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ?
It actually saves a step in the processing. When you point to an interface
the router does not have to lookup what interface to switch out of.
ie. 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 1.1.1.1
The router processes for default then looks up 1.1.1.1 to see what interface
it is out of then fowards out the interface.
Nope. In the Cisco world, anyway, you can point a static route out a
physical interface, out a logical interface, out a null interface, or to any
network that appears in your routing table. Neat, isn't it!
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Be
That is the rule. I will say that when there was only one device on the
ethernet I have done it accidently and it worked though.
andy
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Stull, Cory wrote:
>
> I know I'm showing my ignorance here but I'm tired of trying to find the
> answer on CCO. Must be looking in the
EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy
Walden
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:01 AM
To: Stull, Cory
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: ip route question
That is the rule. I will say that when there was only one device on the
ethernet I have done it accidently and it worke
ry
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: ip route question
That is the rule. I will say that when there was only one device on the
ethernet I have done it accidently and it worked though.
andy
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Stull, Cory wrote:
>
> I know I'm showing my ignorance here
I would actually like to disagree, the reason for specifying the interface here is
not so that you can save time, but so that you don't create routing loops. When an
interface is used with the 'ip route' command, the route is then reliant on the
availability of this interface. Then, if you were
Cory,
It works on broadcast networks because proxy arp is on by default.
Meaning, when the packet wanting to leave the router needs a MAC address
for encapsulation, the router has to stop and send an arp request to ask
"who has this route?". All the routers on that segment will then have to
proc
ssage-
From: ccarring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:22 PM
To: Stull, Cory
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: ip route question
Cory,
It works on broadcast networks because proxy arp is on by default.
Meaning, when the packet wanting to leave the rou
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy
> Walden
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:01 AM
> To: Stull, Cory
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: ip route question
>
>
It works when you point a static default an ethernet interface (or any LAN
interface, for that matter) because the gateway router will answer the ARP.
The downside here is, that your router has no next-hop IP address
configured in the default static route statement to arp for. So what does
he
this opposite of what you claim - create loops. Ask
Pamela Forsyth.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:26 PM
To: Christopher Larson
Cc: 'Stull, Cory'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip route question
I would
If you point a static route toward an ethernet interface, what is the
next-hop MAC address? Does it broadcast those packets in hopes that there
is actually a router on that network that might be able to forward them?
And what would happen if there were two routers on a hub hanging off of that
in
The sending station will use the first arp reply that it receives as it's
destination MAC address.
-Original Message-
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ip route question
If you point a s
I think it will work, but I suspect there is a caveat.
Think about it,
Lets say your ethernet 0 interface is 1.1.1.1 /24
and you have a default route ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ethernet 0
then lets say my router receives a packet destined for an IP address it
doesn't otherwise know a route to,
ry; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ip route question
I realize that it lets you do it, but the rule (which of course I have no
proof of existance) is that pointing a route out of an interface which is
not point-to-point and has multiple nodes, can lead to confusion in some
instances. I have had i
d this is my conclusion... it depends...
>
> Cory
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Walden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:33 AM
> To: Chuck Larrieu
> Cc: Stull, Cory; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: ip route question
>
>
2000 1:50 PM
To: Stull, Cory
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip route question
Hey, we all learned something today...I fixed my flawed logic and found
out yet another hack :)
andy
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Stull, Cory wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Thanks for the reply.. I agree with yo
-
From: Ben Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 1:26 PM
To: Christopher Larson
Cc: 'Stull, Cory'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip route question
I would actually like to disagree, the reason for specifying the interface
here is
not so that you c
en'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip route question
Andy,
Thanks for the reply.. I agree with you.. It won't work if proxy-arp is
disabled and its also a design rule not to do it out of a broadcast
interface if you don't have to because there will be more traffic/arp
And after the reading of the RFC, and a quick response in e-mail I see my
understanding is not correct.
-Original Message-
From: Stull, Cory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 2:27 PM
To: 'Andy Walden'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: ip r
you can point static route out to any network , I have
not done that b4 can you please enlighten me?
I always thought that you can only point static routes
to physical interfaces, logical interfaces and a
specific host's ip address but not a network
suaveguru
--- Chuck Larrieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED
29, 2000 6:39 PM
To: Chuck Larrieu; Stull, Cory; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: ip route question
you can point static route out to any network , I have
not done that b4 can you please enlighten me?
I always thought that you can only point static routes
to physical interfaces, logical
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:54:05PM -0800, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
> Why not? The router forwards packets based on entries in the routing table.
> What, fundamentally, is the difference between ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
> 172.16.75.45 and ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.16.0.0?
>
> As long as there is an
re is an entry in the routing table
> for either, the router
> will forward the packet out the appropriate
> interface.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: suaveguru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 6:39 PM
> To: Ch
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 8:07 AM
To: Stull, Cory; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: ip route question
I think it will work, but I suspect there is a caveat.
Think about it,
Lets say your ethernet 0 interface is 1.1.1.1 /24
and you have a default route ip route 0.0.0
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
suaveguru
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:52 PM
To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: ip route question
You are right, but forwarding packets to a network
seems less seldom use right?
thanks
Cory,
I read thru the responses and they are all good but I would like to
add...
Who is to say that an Ethernet interface is not a point to point. Using
media converters changing a FE interface from tx to fiber and then back
again I have many WAN FE point to point interfaces.
In a few cases
ull interface
SerialSerial
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy
Walden
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:01 AM
To: Stull, Cory
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:Re: ip route question
That is the rule. I wi
hat are
> filled with instances of
> things that are definitely NOT good practice.
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> suaveguru
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 10:52 PM
> To: Chuck L
Lou,
Nothing to say you can't have an Ethernet link that is in fact
point-to-point. However, the router still needs a MAC address to get to
the router on the opposite side, due to the frame structure of
Ethernet. He will still need to ARP for a MAC address, and if there's no
next-hop IP add
The answer is that on Cisco equipment, anyway, one can configure a static
route to go to a directly connected interface, or to any network that
appears in the routing table.
It looks like, in your case, you want something like this:
Router_C
i.p. route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 router_A_address ( since t
om routerA through
routerB to the internet. This will make all internet traffic go through the
web sense filter.
Thanks again.
Cory
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:14 AM
To: Stull, Cory; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE
Yea, arp lookups will be performed until the specified
interface of the default route is found. This is
called recursive arp (??)
I think this is related to the idea of setting an
addresss way upstream as the default route for your
AS. In other words, efforts should be made to set the
default rou
H,
Not so sure if it is a good idea though !!!
I tried this one time at work where I inserted a
static route to a network more than one hop away,
although I had "re-distribute static" on the EIGRP
configured router it created a wonderful little
routing loop and I went home late again.
Re
:RE: ip route question
H,
Not so sure if it is a good idea though !!!
I tried this one time at work where I inserted a
static route to a network more than one hop away,
although I had "re-distribute static" on the EIGRP
configured router it created a wonderful little
ro
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stull, Cory"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: ip route question
> I agree that the design itself is open to question. I am not so sure that
> router_a is going to know what to do.
>
&
: Phil Barker; Stull, Cory; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ip route question
I agree that the design itself is open to question. I am not so sure that
router_a is going to know what to do.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Phil Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January
It determines how the router switches packets.
If you use 'ip route-cache' then the router will be fast-switching the
packets. The router keeps a cached memory full of recently used (which
should often equal heavily used) routes & destinations. When a packet comes
in it can use that cache to
08, 2000 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: IP route cache
> It determines how the router switches packets.
>
> If you use 'ip route-cache' then the router will be fast-switching the
> packets. The router keeps a cached memory full of recently used (which
> should often equal heavily u
>
>thanks that was good explaination
>
>can u tell me why? for what "ip mroute-cache" is used on serial interfaces
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: Michael Fountain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>S
if I am not wrong ip route-cache enable fast-switching while no ip
route-cache disables fast-switching and drops to process switching
so that's really a matter of enabling switching types between interfaces
hope this helps
Jason Yee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[
studying
for the CID exam.
Cory
-Original Message-
From: Yee, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:11 PM
To: 'Tony Russell'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: IP route cache
if I am not wrong ip route-cache enable fast-switching whi
That is true and it's always enabled by default. Check the bugs for
fast switching 'cos it has quite a few issues with NAT, ISDN, Frame
Relay (sub-i/f), ISL on Fast Ethernet (sub-if again) and some other
stuff too.
--- "Yee, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if I am not wrong ip
route-cache ena
Nevermind, please don't answer my post. My questions have already been
answered by others, no need to create more duplicate responses. :-)
> If you point a static route toward an ethernet interface, what is the
> next-hop MAC address? Does it broadcast those packets in hopes that
there
> is
I think that I understand you to say that you have a core router and several
other routers - let's call them A & B. You can dial in and connect to the
core's LAN but cannot connect (ping) the remote routers (A & B). You are
using static routes. On routers A & B do you have routes back to
192.168.1
I've never done this before... I've migrated countless networks to new ip
schemes.
But you have not given us a whole lot of info to go by. check out this
link. Is this what you are trying to accomplish?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/52.html#subfirstone
There are other reasons to rout
I'm not sure what you mean by "implementing migrating". The cammand that
you mentioned is a easy efficient access-list alternative. Essentially it
tells the router to drop all packets destined for the specified network.
It's easier to setup than an access-list, and more efficent in terms of
pro
Never knew it was. Where does it say this is necessary?? I use
routes to null to generate a route or send packets to a bit bucket.
Dave
Stanfast Preye wrote:
>
> Dear Group,
>
> Why is it necessary to configure all routers in a network with "ip route
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx null 0" statement bef
The Null interface is typically used for preventing routing loops.
Daniel Ladrach
CCNA, CCNP
WorldCom
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanfast Preye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: ip route statement [7:43001]
>
>
> De
Hi Preye
The Null interface is also used to filter the private network from the
Internet.
does this give u some clue ???
- Original Message -
From: Ladrach, Daniel E.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: ip route statement [7:43001]
> The Null interface
Hi Preye
The Null interface is also used to filter the private network from the
Internet.
does this give u some clue ???
- Original Message -
From: Ladrach, Daniel E.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: ip route statement [7:43001]
> The Null interface
can you provide an example of what circumstance might require the use of a
null route to prevent a loop? My lack of imagination is preventing me from
deriving my own example.
""Ladrach, Daniel E."" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Null interface is typically
Also, to supplement (or create) summary routes...
Mike W.
"Ladrach, Daniel E." wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Null interface is typically used for preventing routing loops.
>
> Daniel Ladrach
> CCNA, CCNP
> WorldCom
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
One reason to add that null 0 hold down route is so you always have
it in your route table. For instance if you are running BGP and anouncing
a /20 to a provider and you have instability in your IGP you may lose the
route in your table and not anounce that to your provider. If your provider
sees t
Can it be used as a default-gateway for hosts in LANs when migrating from
one class of IP Address to another.
Example:
Host configuration (default-gateway=128.100.10.32)
Router global configuration (ip route 128.100.10.32 null 0)
Can somebody explain ho
o the missing route
will match the null route, thus stopping the loop.
Hope that explains at least one case.
Philip
-Original Message-
From: Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ip route statement [7:43001]
can you provi
What's sloppy about it ?
Would you prefer the overhead of an acl ?
Please suggest a better way..
But with the AD in there set to 200, it looks like a route
in a "holding pattern" for bgp redistribution.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66759&t=66755
Either a sloppy way to drop traffic for a /24, or bgp
summarization using null routing.
-Karsten
On Thursday 03 April 2003 07:40 am, Anil Gupte wrote:
> I am trying to understand some IP route commands on our router. Several of
> them go to Null0 - what does that mean?
>
> For example, I have
>
Sloppy!? why??
Dave
Karsten wrote:
> Either a sloppy way to drop traffic for a /24, or bgp
> summarization using null routing.
>
> -Karsten
>
> On Thursday 03 April 2003 07:40 am, Anil Gupte wrote:
>
>>I am trying to understand some IP route commands on our router. Several of
>>them go to
null0 is used as an alternative to access-lists. it is a blackhole. so
anything routed to it gets dropped automatically. an access-list uses more
processor overhead than a null interface and thus if you have a certain part
of your network that you don't want to go anywhere, then use a null
interfac
I'll clarify. On lower end cisco routers not running
bgp, yes, it will save you some cpu cycles. But most
of the routers I'm working on a day to day basis(12Ks, 10Ks, 7200s)
are running full table and hardly get slowed by by acls.
Not to mention the problems a null route (for the purpose
of bit-bu
You are right, it is using BGP. What does summarization do?
Do I need an identical statement for my new Class C?
Thanx,
Anil Gupte
- Original Message -
From: "Karsten"
To: "Anil Gupte" ;
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: IP route to Null0?
e: IP route to Null0? [7:66755]
You are right, it is using BGP. What does summarization do?
Do I need an identical statement for my new Class C?
Thanx,
Anil Gupte
- Original Message -
From: "Karsten"
To: "Anil Gupte" ;
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject:
'd guess.
-Original Message-
From: Anil Gupte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2003 7:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP route to Null0? [7:66755]
You are right, it is using BGP. What does summarization do?
Do I need an identical statement for my new Class C?
T
oute dampening in the long run if nothing else :)
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Anil Gupte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 4 April 2003 7:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IP route to Null0? [7:66755]
>
>
> You are right, it is using BGP
Not sure what engine line cards you're running on your GSRs, but I've
run into several a problems with ACLs on the GSR platform. It's not
until you get to the E3 ISE or better LC where ACLs are handled
reasonably.
Three problems from memory:
* E0 line cards run the ACLs off the LC CPU and not A
Not sure what engine line cards you're running on your GSRs, but I've
run into several a problems with ACLs on the GSR platform. It's not
until you get to the E3 ISE or better LC where ACLs are handled
reasonably.
Three problems from memory:
* E0 line cards run the ACLs off the LC CPU and not A
You know your GSRs :). Yea I'm running almost all
ISE LCs. For example on a particular one at PAIX that
averages about a half or a Gig during peak on almost
all of my interfaces I have at least some type of acl in both
directions. I only see about 8% cpu useage, hardly any
of which is the ACL (mos
Hi!
This may not answer your questions completely but hope it helps at least
somebody!
Originating the default routes for different routing protocols (not all...).
RIP and RIPv2
There are three possibilities:
1) If the RIP process has network 0.0.0.0 in its database, it will
distribute this a
check the link http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/default.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Aki Anttila
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ip route 0.0.0.0 V.S. ip default-network
Hi!
This
Using the traditional, static means, your router receives a gateway of last resort
that is fixed to a particular next hop router (or multiple in the event that you
configure multiple) However, if the router has a number of outbound connections, you
may not be maximizing your resiliency in this
83 matches
Mail list logo
