iBGP next hop and multi-access media

Mon Oct 7 04:42:32 UTC 2002

My understanding is the route is valid as long as the interface is
up; just like adding a secondary IP on the interface.

Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com 

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> 
> Aha.
> 
> So, if you route to a ethernet interface, it will try to arp for that
> address on that subnet, even without having a local address on the same
> subnet?
> 
> This seems to me to be something you don't want to do.
> 
> Is the entire route valid as long as the router can ARP for one of the
> addresses in the routed subnet?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> >
> > > I've been doing ip route statements going on 8 years now, and I can't
> > > imagine why ever -- and how it would even work -- you'd want to ip route a
> > > netblock with a next hop of a multi-access brandcast media. As in, the
> > > next hop is still truly undetermined.
> > >
> > > I guess I don't know this because I've never tried it. But, how does the
> > > router determine where to send the packets for a route statement as
> > > specified above (ip route a.b.c.d e.f.g.h f0/0) ?
> >
> > When you setup a secondary ip on an interface
> >  int fa0/0
> >    ip address a.b.c.d e.f.g.h secondary
> >
> > How does it determine where to send the packets?  ARP.
> > Which is the same as adding the route described above.
> >
> > -Ralph
> >
> 
> -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex at nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
> --    Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --
> 
> 
> 