Was the IP configured manually or received via dhcp? DHCP learned
default route could be injected if the latter.
I believe we can still have a default route, without unicast routing
enabled. I thought we defined unicast routing to be between L3
interfaces on the device, but for management purposes could still have a
route defined.
Sorry ... been a while since I worked on a non-L3 switch, but figured I
would take a stab.
Rob
On 11/16/2010 12:17 PM, Brandon Ewing wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:06:43PM -0400, Sharlon R. Carty wrote:
Hello,
I have a odd situation. I created a SVI on a 3560 switch, assigned an IP
address(public) without enabling ip routing and I was able to remotely
access the switch.
No default route added or anything like that. So how is it that I am able to
access the switch?
switch is connected to another switch which has a trunk connection to a
cisco 7206.
If the source IP that you are connecting from is in the same subnet as the
SVI you created, a return route exists via connected interface, and no
default route is needed.
Another case would be an incorrect netmask, with proxy-arp enabled on
another ip-routing device in the broadcast network.
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
