Greetings, I've recently come across a case whereby an 877 router running 12.4(4)T7 I was looking at had:
interface Dialer0 ip address negotiated interface Vlan1 ip address 203.123.155.233 255.255.255.248 However the Dialer was being assigned the address 203.123.155.233 by the remote LNS. The routing table looks like this: 203.123.155.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks C 203.123.155.232/29 is directly connected, Vlan1 C 203.123.155.233/32 is directly connected, Dialer3 [IPs changed slightly to obscure the innocent] router#show int di3 Dialer3 is up, line protocol is up (spoofing) Hardware is Unknown Description: Internet Network Internet address is 203.123.155.233/32 router#show int vl1 Vlan1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is EtherSVI, address is 001b.8fd3.3c05 (bia 001b.8fd3.3b15) Description: LAN Internet address is 203.123.155.233/29 This seems to be a little odd, and I'm unsure if this is in fact a valid configuration. My gut reaction to this is that that's basically 'ip unnumbered' but not configured explicitly, and that having a /32 assigned to the Dialer/WAN which overlapped the Vlan interface may not be supported. Has anyone else seen this done before, or is it known to have any ill effects? There seems to be no problems apparent but then that doesn't imply that it is right and will survive IOS upgrades in the future ;-) If in fact this is all OK, is there any point in the 'ip unnumbered' command at all? Thanks, Reuben _______________________________________________ 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/