>Brian:
> For some reason I'm having a hard time buying all this. I'll tell you
>what I have at one of our locations and you tell me what I'm doing wrong.
> We have a site with static routing only. The ethernet is fed by a
>Cisco router which knows that this particular network is subnetted with
>255.255.255.224 (30 useable addresses each). We have the ether0 ports of
>3 PortMasters in subnet 1 at .34, .35 and .36. The assigned addresses
>are set to .65, .97 and .129 respectively. The Cisco has static routes
>for .64 to .34, for .96 to .35 and for .128 to .36. In this way, each
>group of assignable addresses are a separate subnet and are directed to
>the correct PortMaster. In this configuration, doing a traceroute to an
>unused assignable address results in a routing loop between that
>PortMaster and the Cisco router.
That is to be expected if I understand your problem correctly.
The cisco will forward the packet to the static route.
Then the portmaster will not see a logged in user with that IP number.
It will look for other routes, and it will find the default route.
The packet is then sent to the default route, which just happens to
be pointing to your cisco. Voila, routing loop.
We have almost the exact same setup. But we use RIP to give the routes
to the cisco. On the cisco we have a route for the Class C net
assigned to the portmasters behind this cisco. Something like..
ip route 194.109.100.0 0.0.0.255 null0
This means, that when a certain user is no longer there, the RIPped
route will disappear, and the cisco will see the above route matching
before the default route. The above route basically dumps the packet
into /dev/null. And it also generates a host unreachable.
I would say that is the correct way to do this.
Cor