Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

Proxy arp will still send the data thro the other router tho, the only
difference is now router B believes router A to be the destination
station. Seems like your worse off than you were before. (Plus I hate proxy arp
in non-SOHO environments!)

Steve

-- 
Stephen J. Wilcox
BSc (Hons), CCNA, CCNP, CCIE wr.
Technical Director, Telecomplete
http://www.telecomplete.co.uk/

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Jared Mauch wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 12:15:40AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> > OK, I'll bite.
> >
> > 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) ?
>
>       A cisco router with the default (ip proxy-arp) enabled on
> the interface will spend all its time doing arp/proxy-arp for the hosts and
> it will actually work believe it or not.
>
>       You'll notice massive cpu utilization.
>
>       People who do this tend to not have a lot of clue or notice
> when their cpu is spending all its time doing this...  One should
> always turn proxy-arp off on your interfaces both internal and customer
> facing so they don't make your router bear the load because they can
> not configure their devices logically.
>
>       - Jared
>
> > > So then what do you call a connected route (for an ethernet interface on a
> > > router)?  If you use ethernet, at the edges of your network you HAVE to
> > > route IP blocks to the ethernet.
> > >
> > > -Ralph
> >
> > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex () nac net, latency, Al Reuben --
> > --    Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --