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

[Brian Feeny]

On Sep 21, 2004, at 6:55 PM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
>
> Look in the archives for the complete discussion of switching paths and
> load sharing or contact me privately and I'll forward his post to you.
>


Bruce,

Thanks for taking the time to explain that.  I was not aware that the 
CEF src/dst coin toss was
deterministic, thats very good for this setup.

> | 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 agree, but on non-broadcast, point to point interface, there is no 
arp done, since their is only one path for the packet to take, what 
goes in one end, must come out the other.  The reason we next-hop to 
interfaces, is so that we can move the customer around without having 
to access their router.  Once again, I don't believe setting next-hop 
to a PtP serial interface causes the arp storm you speak of, but please 
correct me if I am wrong.  I have seen people next-hop to e0 and the 
like on small, memory starved routers, and its not pretty.

> - --
> =========
> bep
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFBUL9zE1XcgMgrtyYRAmRDAKDmAHdpEQkECMyW7bTNZRPSfGCTMACgti52
> 9hSyK/vlseG0ZcECXwp4d1Y=
> =WI4A
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
---------------------------------------------
Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036, CISSP
Network Engineer
ShreveNet Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20040921/5f88626c/PGP.bin