Re: [nsp] is line protocol enough?

• Next message: john heasley: "Re: [nsp] TACACS"
• Previous message: Fabien Berger: "[nsp] is line protocol enough?"
• In reply to: Fabien Berger: "[nsp] is line protocol enough?"
• Next in thread: Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie: "RE: [nsp] is line protocol enough?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:19:12AM -0500, Fabien Berger wrote:
>
> i came across a strange thing, can someone explain?
>
> 2 routers are connected via a serial v.35 (HDLC encapsulation, keepalives are set to 10s). on one end of the line the line protocol
> is down and on the other the line protocol stays up (link is up in both ends). a sh/no sh does not help.
>
> the problem is that the static routes pointing towards that interface (with line protocol up) are not removed. traffic is lost! does
> this mean that we should never trust the keepalives? should we always let a routing protocol discover link failures?

Or run ppp, my experience is that ppp is much better at detecting
failures ...

Please wrap you mail at 70 chars ...

/Jesper

-- 
Jesper Skriver (JS4261-RIPE), Network manager      
Tele Danmark DataNet, IP section (AS3292)
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.

• Next message: john heasley: "Re: [nsp] TACACS"
• Previous message: Fabien Berger: "[nsp] is line protocol enough?"
• In reply to: Fabien Berger: "[nsp] is line protocol enough?"
• Next in thread: Christian Panigl, ACOnet/UniVie: "RE: [nsp] is line protocol enough?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:07 EDT