Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > static route, next hop vs interface question.

Reply
Thread Tools

static route, next hop vs interface question.

 
 
cozzmo1@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2006
I put in a static route
ip route 172.20.21.50 255.255.255.240 ethernet 0
I saw the trace go to the next hop, but no further.
after changing from the outbound interface to the next hop routers
interface IP,
ip route 172.20.21.50 255.255.255.240 142.1.11.45
I had no problem reaching the destination.
Does anyone know why?

Thanks
crzzy1

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I put in a static route
>ip route 172.20.21.50 255.255.255.240 ethernet 0
>I saw the trace go to the next hop, but no further.
>after changing from the outbound interface to the next hop routers
>interface IP,
>ip route 172.20.21.50 255.255.255.240 142.1.11.45
>I had no problem reaching the destination.
>Does anyone know why?


proxy arp.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cozzmo1@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2006
I put in a static route
ip route 172.20.21.50 255.255.255.240 ethernet 0
I saw the trace go to the next hop, but no further.
after changing from the outbound interface to the next hop routers
interface IP,
ip route 172.20.21.50 255.255.255.240 142.1.11.45
I had no problem reaching the destination.
Does anyone know why?

Thanks
crzzy1

correction to the above this is what I used to reach my destination
(172.20.21.50)
ip route 172.20.21.32 255.255.255.240 e0 (Doesn't work)
ip route 172.20.21.32 255.255.255.240 142.1.11.45 (works)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>correction to the above this is what I used to reach my destination
>(172.20.21.50)
>ip route 172.20.21.32 255.255.255.240 e0 (Doesn't work)
>ip route 172.20.21.32 255.255.255.240 142.1.11.45 (works)


As I said... proxy arp. When you set an explicit next hop, your
router is going to arp for that next hop, and that device will
answer conveying back its MAC address. When you set the next
hop as your current interface, then your router is going to ARP for
the IP of the destination that is in the packet, and unless the
remote router knows that it is to answer for -all- unknown IP
address ranges (i.e, "proxy arp") then that router isn't going to answer
(and nothing local will either because it isn't the IP address
of anything local...)

 
Reply With Quote
 
cozzmo1@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2006
I looked it up.
You are correct, the next hop is a foundry router, and the proxy arp is
disabled by default.
Nice work...
Thanks,
crzzy1

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: BGP + Route-map + Next-hop addr David Sudjiman Cisco 3 01-23-2007 01:13 PM
Route-Map / Adjacent Next Hop Question Eric Cisco 15 02-15-2006 05:04 AM
learning destination MAC if default route uses interface and not next-hop IP Brad Cisco 3 09-20-2005 04:00 PM
Default route using interface not next-hop on LAN Brad Cisco 14 03-03-2005 07:39 AM
PIX's route: why is the interface name *and* next-hop required? Ben Low Cisco 0 02-28-2004 01:36 PM



Advertisments