.
--
deejay
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Michael Ulitskiy
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 6:23 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IP unnumbered vlan subinterfaces question
Hello,
Guys, are there any drawbacks of doing the following:
interface Lo0
ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0.1
encapsulation dot1q 1 native
ip unnumbered Lo0
!
ip route 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0.1
!
as opposed to having ip address configured
Loopback interfaces do not go down, so I'm not sure what benefit you are
getting besides the ability to blackhole the 10.10.10.0/24 if the ethernet
goes down.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:09, Michael Ulitskiy mulits...@acedsl.com wrote:
Hello,
Guys, are there any drawbacks of doing the
So you don't want to use another IP for loopback. Sorry, misunderstood.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:29, Aaron dudep...@gmail.com wrote:
Loopback interfaces do not go down, so I'm not sure what benefit you are
getting besides the ability to blackhole the 10.10.10.0/24 if the ethernet
goes down.
Don't do it. It's a hack and there are other forwarding plane things
that don't like it. Read as..it may or may not always work.
Burn another /32 for your loopback.
Rodney
Aaron wrote:
Loopback interfaces do not go down, so I'm not sure what benefit you are
getting besides the ability to
03, 2009 5:10 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] IP unnumbered vlan subinterfaces question
Hello,
Guys, are there any drawbacks of doing the following:
interface Lo0
ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0.1
encapsulation dot1q 1 native
ip
It's not about saving a /32.
This is a CPE device and I was just trying to save myself administrative burden
of maintaining another per-customer static ip assignment.
I don't need dynamic routing protocol to run on those interfaces, but thanks
for pointing it out anyway.
Ok, if I have to do it
Of Michael Ulitskiy
Sent: lunedì 3 agosto 2009 17.10
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] IP unnumbered vlan subinterfaces question
Hello,
Guys, are there any drawbacks of doing the following:
interface Lo0
ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0.1
encapsulation
Of Michael Ulitskiy
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 6:23 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IP unnumbered vlan subinterfaces question
It's not about saving a /32.
This is a CPE device and I was just trying to save myself
administrative burden of maintaining another per-customer
