Gert Doering wrote:
I can only second this. If you have a dedicated point-to-point interface for
things, tacking the route on the interface is usually more robust than
pointing towards a gateway IP that might not be there, or might be learned
recursively over another interface, etc.
I'm going to have to think on this. This could be a good solution for
us, though again I don't ever foresee the need to re-IP a loopback. Can
anyone give me an example of such a scenario?
For multiaccess-links, *don't* do "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 eth0", of
course (use "... eth0 <gateway_ip>"). Just to make this very clear.
ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.248 Serial10/1/0/3:0 name CustomerRouteA
One can tack a *name* to routes? Need to test this :-)
Does this name get carried in IGPs? Or is it just there in the config
to document things?
LOL. Yes, Gert. One can name static routes, contrary to what my
predecessor thought. :-) It's local to the router. It's just a nice
way to describe what the static is for.
Thanks for the info
Justin
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
