Does Cisco understand netmask tables?
John W. Temples (john@kuwait.net)
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:33:14 +0300 ()
After installing my eighth Portmaster, I decided it was time to implement
netmask tables. Everything went as expected, except for the fact that I
didn't need to add a static route on my Cisco gateway router. The Cisco's
route tables showed a host route on a subnet boundary for each PM. And if
I did a traceroute from the Cisco to a dialup user on a particular PM, the
Cisco went straight to the correct PM, without having a static route to a
"gateway" PM.
Routing is on on all PMs, and I've verified proxy ARP isn't being used
(the Cisco doesn't have ARP entries for any PM dialup users), and the
Cisco doesn't have host routes for dialup users either.
How is this working?
--
John W. Temples, III || Providing the first public access Internet
Gulfnet Kuwait || site in the Arabian Gulf region