I don't see a conflict either. The ISP's responsibility ends at the external gateway router, unless maintenance is outsourced. If the ISP provides the router, it may be responsible for the LAN interface, but not for the reachability of devices on that LAN. More commonly, the ISP simply needs to know that it can reach the customer premises router.
At 4:26 PM +0000 7/21/02, Peter van Oene wrote: >These statements do not seem to conflict. > >At 03:25 PM 7/21/2002 +0000, you wrote: >>Priscilla, >> >> Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You >wrote >>"Now, network management is a concern, however. If your serial interface is >>unnumbered, you can't ping it or send it SNMP messages. With those >>functions, the serial port acts as an end host and must have a network-layer >>address. That's the tradeoff". >> >>I have found in Cisco ISP essentials book, the following: "Many ISPs use >>monitoring systems that use ping to check the status of the leased line. >>Even if the customer unplugs the LAN, an alarm will not be raised on the >>ISPs management system. This is because the customer router still knows >>that the LAN IP address is configured on the system and is "useable" ". >>(page 46) >> >>Regards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49360&t=49347 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
