The default gateway, by definition, is the next-hop step to non-local
networks, which would have to be the nearest device performing layer-3
routing, whether it's a router or layer-3 switch. This device must be
directly attached to the local network. If your router is connected to this
LAN directly and the switch you're referring to is not directly connected,
then the router must be the default gateway.
I hope this makes sense. I'm rambling. It's late, and I'm also in the
middle of two other instant message chats.
HTH,
John
> Greetings,
>
> We're having a discussion at work on the merits of moving the default
gateway from our router to our switch. In a nutshell, we have multiple IP
subnets and 2 routers with secondary addresses. I understand that the
'Cisco way' is to readdress so as to not have multiple IP subnets, however
I'm not here to debate that. We'd like to move the gateway address to our
core switch and let it do any routing (Our switch (3com) is a layer 3 switch
that's capable of RIP & OSPF). I'm told, though, that it cannot be done. I
don't have any spare layer 3 switches with which to 'play' with. To me, it
makes sense to have a switch do the routing because they're considerably
more robust than the routers that we currently have.
>
> We're replacing our 3com routers with 2 Cisco 7206's next quarter and
will be installing a pair of 6500's next year. We're moving from OSPF to
EIGRP only. What we'd like is for the switches to route, assuming that
they're EIGRP capable. I guess we'd need a route-processor.
>
> I guess my question is, can this be done? Is this a common practice in
the real world? I'm anxious to hear from you all.
>
> Bob
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
