On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:50:33PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:22:45AM -0700, David Barak wrote: > > I first encountered "route to the (sub) interface" in > > the context of frame-relay subinterfaces. If there is > > another route to that IP address (for instance, a > > tie-down route, or something through another carrier), > > when the interface goes down, > > For *point to point* interfaces, this does make very much sense. > > For multipoint interfaces, adding routes without a next-hop IP address > means "the router has to do ARP for every single destination" - and it > will only work if there is a router on the other side that does proxy-ARP. > > So this is a *baaaad* idea. > > > (Cisco: would you PLEASE turn off proxy-arp in the default config? It > doesn't help anything - it just hides misconfigurations in other places, > by making broken configurations "magically" work)
CSCec48142 Internally found moderate defect: Resolved (R) Proxy-arp should no longer default to on Integrated in 12.2(18)SXE 12.2(25.04)S 12.0(29.01)S 12.3(09.11)T > > gert > > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > //www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] > fax: +49-89-35655025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
