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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:00:42AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> Pointing to interfaces is generally discouraged [..]
> > I want to disagree on this one.   
[..]
> otoh, pointing at next hop lets the remote hands move a
> circuit to a new interface, or cut over to a new circuit,
> and the noc only has to change the interface part of the
> config, not hack through any routing.

Admitted.  So this could be summarized as:

 - on multipoint interfaces, never put routes to the interface unless
   you *want* the router to ARP for it (there could be reasons) because
   the extra ARP will use memory & CPU cycles and add unnecessary
   broadcast traffic.

 - on point-to-point interfaces, use the next-hop ip or the interface, 
   depending on the approach that's most useful/convenient for your 
   environment.  Neither will have any impact on the router performance 
   (assuming CEF).

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de