[c-nsp] Does "backup interface" gratuitous ARP?

Pete Lumbis alumbis at gmail.com
Wed Aug 13 21:02:49 EDT 2014


BVI on modern* code will be CEF switched, so not anymore CPU intensive than
any other packet.

*for some definition of "modern" being >= 12.4.24T<something>


On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Sam Stickland <sam at spacething.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:44:49PM +0100, Sam Stickland wrote:
> > > I'm exploring redundancy possibilities for a router hand off without a
> > > dynamic routing protocol. It's ugly and I'm not going to explain all
> the
> > > details here, but I basically have this configuration on a router:
> > >
> > > interface Gi1/1
> > >   backup interface Gi1/2
> > >   ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252
> > >
> > > interface Gi1/2
> > >   ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252
> >
> > I can't answer your question, but have one of my own - can you do IPv6
> > with this nowadays?  "backup interface" suppresses the "I have seen this
> > IP config elsewhere!" check, but they forgot to do this for IPv6 as well
> > (and I have lost the need to do backup interface, as we moved to
> > 6500s and just do port-channels or "put both interface into the same
> > vlan, use SVI").
>
>
> I just tried it with ipv6 address on my 12.4T dyanmips setup and it didn't
> like the overlapping addresses.
>
> Someone suggested to me, off-list, that I could use BVI. I seem to have
> some memory of BVI being quite CPU intensive but it's been a *long* time
> since I looked at it. Does anyone know if there's any truth to that?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list