sam sneed wrote: > > This is not the classcial router on a stick model. That model > is for routing > between VLANs on a router with 1 interface using trunking. All > this router > is doing is taking packets from its eth1 interface, comparing > them to its > routing table and forwarding out the same eth1 interface for > the gateway > which is designated for the 192.168.2.0 network. This is > totally legitmate > and no secondary or subinterfaces are needed.
I agree with Sam that this is not the classical router on a stick model. Although it may help to understand what is happening to call this router on a stick, your situation is not what is usually described by that phrase. The phrase is used when you have a single router interface that is doing inter-VLAN routing. That's not what you have. You have a typical case where the default gateway can't get to the destination network except by sending the packet back out to another box on the LAN. Not a big deal, but just thought you might want to know that you could confuse people by calling this "router on a stick." ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com > > > > ""Frank H"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > The "router on a stick" effect comes from this: > > > > ip route 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.100 > > > > All traffic destined to any network not on 192.168.0.0 goes > to the gateway > > (192.168.0.1) on interface ethernet 1. The router then > re-routes > 192.168.2.0 > > traffic back on the 192.168.0.0 network to 192.168.0.100 (the > "router on a > > stick" effect). > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49598&t=49536 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
