[c-nsp] What is wrong with this config? (nat load sharing)

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

just saw this one:

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:55:31PM -0700, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
> | ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0
> | ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial1.1
> | ip route 207.254.192.0 255.255.224.0 Serial0
> 
> Pointing to interfaces is generally discouraged since it causes the router
> to want to ARP.  You should point at next hop IP addresses.

I want to disagree on this one.   

If the interface is a point-to-point serial link (and dedicated so, unlike 
a legacy DDR BRI interface), there is no ARP going on, so the config
above is actually what we strongly recommend to our tech people and to
our customers.  It's very evident what's going on ("out *that* line"),
you can run it numbered or unnumbered, without affecting the way static
routes have to be set up, and in case you need to renumber the interface, 
you won't need to touch the static routes.

Of course for multiaccess interfaces, like Ethernet or LANE, putting
a default route to the interface is a no-no.

gert

-- 
Gert Doering
Mobile communications ... right now writing from * back @ home *