[c-nsp] Is proxy-arp evil?

[Rodney Dunn]

The router would proxy arp if it has a more specific route
out another interface.

But it's a hack and I would not design my network around it
working personally.

Rodney


On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 01:05:12PM +0200, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> Re:)
> 
> 
> whisper555 at gmail.com (Whisper) wrote:
> 
> > There was a big discussion on this list about proxy-arp several months ago.
> 
> And I do suppose that's why I find proxy-arp quite suspicious, and why I
> asked about someone having a different idea for a solution.
> 
> > Do a search for the forums that keep this in forum format to read up about
> > it.
> 
> I will refresh my memory :)
> 
> About Terry's question:
> 
> The servers and the service address are NOT on the same subnet,
> I must have explained badly.
> 
> ISP-to-Router: a.b.c.d/28         (think 192.0.2.0/28)
> Router-to-Servers: 192.168.1.0/24
> Server Loopback: a.b.c.+3         (think 192.0.2.3)
> 
> Yours,
> 	Elmi.
> 
> > >                                  +--- [Server]
> > >[ISP]---| a.b.c.d/28 |--[Router]--+--- [Server]
> > >                                  +--- [Server]
> > >
> 
> > > 3750#show run | i relevant
> > > !
> > > interface vlan 10
> > >  description OUTSIDE
> > >  ip address a.b.c.+2 255.255.255.240
> > > !
> > > interface vlan 11
> > >  description INSIDE
> > >  ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
> > > !
> > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 a.b.c.+1
> > > ip route a.b.c.+3 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.2
> > > ip route a.b.c.+3 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.3
> > > ip route a.b.c.+3 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.4
> > > !
> > > ip cef
> > > ip cef load-sharing algorithm tunnel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/