>
> >One question I had about that strategy is... does CEF work when you specify
> >interfaces as gateways in your static route statements... or does one need
> >to put IP addresses in for it to work correctly... or does it matter at all?
>
>It doesn't really matter, both work. I prefer to use the interface name as
>the next hop (we use it all the time) which is kinda' nice because if for
>whatever reason the WAN port needs to be renumbered, the static route will
>not care.
Would you use the "IP unnumbered" command in the above?
>-- Glenn
>
> >Scott
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Scot Donovan Blair [mailto:sblair@cerf.net]
> >Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 11:08 PM
> >To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >Subject: Re: static routing
> >
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> > Equal cost static routes should work fine to balance between your T1's.
> >I would note turning route-cache off the interface may be useful as well
> >(this is always debatable). Something that looks odd to me is the below
> >snipet of your info..
> >
> >"Gateway of last resort is 0.0.0.0 to network 0.0.0.0"
> >
> >Without seeing the config I would be just guessing but it appears as if
> >maybe you have default-gateway set to 0.0.0.0.. it's a guess. Im not sure
> >what your problems are *exactly* but if you are trying to load balance
> >between multiple T1's it should be more than OK to have equal costs
> >statics to multiple interfaces .
> >
> >
> >-blair
> >AT&T CERFnet
> >Backbone Engineering and Planning
> >
> >| PGP Public Key: www.hfh.com/blair/pgp.txt |
> >
> >On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Paul Jacobs wrote:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:07 EDT