[c-nsp] What is wrong with this config? (nat load sharing)
bep at whack.org
Sun Oct 3 14:07:53 EDT 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Gert Doering wrote:
| 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).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the cisco-nsp