Re: Static route to an interface [7:84188] posted 02/11/2004
- Subject: Re: Static route to an interface [7:84188]
- From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:38:53 GMT
M.C. van den Bovenkamp wrote:
> Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> > Now try setting this up with an Ethernet interface in a
> static route and
> > that could be more interesting. Let us know what you find
> out. Thanks.
> The box will start ARPing for all addresses supposedly
> reachable through
> the static.
Lovely! :-) I thought I remembered something like that but couldn't find any
info on it. It can get pretty ugly especially during a hacker attack, eh?
By the way, for it to work at all does the "next hop" router have to be
running Proxy ARP? It seems like it would have to. Example:
If RouterA has a static that says to send to 172.16.0.0 send out e1, and
that causes RouterA to ARP for packets sent to 172.16.0.0, it won't work
unless RouterB replies to the ARPs with its own address. In other words,
RouterB has to be running the Proxy ARP "hack." (Some people call it a hack.
Message Posted at:
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html