I have a question... After reading and prior experience I am wondering if during the configuration of a static route that you can use the next hop interface instead of the next op ip address? I would think since it is a legal command it is allowed. What say the forum?

djm

__________________
______________

Life, the only test that counts!!"

djm
______________

Report this post to a moderator

You can do that, but it is usually used in WAN or similar configurations. For example, a branch office that uses a point-to-point T1 to connect to corporate. You could use the following:

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial 0

__________________
Save the animals. Eat a vegetarian.

Report this post to a moderator

that's actually the directly connected interface not the next hop interface.

Yankee

Report this post to a moderator

True, but if it's a point-to-point link, the only interface it could possibly go to is the next hop. However, you are correct. So, I guess the answer to the original question would be no, since the interface names are only locally significant. The configuration in my previous example accomplishes the same thing, though.

__________________
Save the animals. Eat a vegetarian.

Report this post to a moderator

yes
yankee's right

serial0 is the local interface
by forwarding the pactets there they will make it
to the other end provided layer1 and 2 are up


your options are
local interface or next hop
local interface does not use recursive routing lookup or arp
and the next hop option does.

__________________
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/

Report this post to a moderator

thanks all, this does help clear it up.

djm

__________________
______________

Life, the only test that counts!!"

djm
______________

Report this post to a moderator