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

[Bruce Pinsky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gert Doering wrote:
| 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).
|


Fair enough.

- --
=========
bep

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFBYD/5E1XcgMgrtyYRAgSeAKDH8Ild3LXR46pI8jfjNfU1ZRW1lgCeNWu8
Lb5ql9oA0/9EKJA9yLVG9Jw=
=g4B5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----