[145017] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange static route
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Storey)
Sun Sep 25 05:37:29 2011
In-Reply-To: <CAPLq3UPDGcq5gi_5XSz47riZf_jytypHfZL_CH7khyZuU6opzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:37:18 +0100
From: Tom Storey <tom@snnap.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I found I had to do this many years ago on some Cisco routers to get them to
load balance (per packet) across two links. Adding 0.0.0.0/0 routes across
both links just resulted in traffic routing across one link. Broke it into
two /1's per link and it worked perfectly.
On 24 September 2011 02:12, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have seen a few operators adding static routes like:
> 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and
> 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop.
>
> Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1
> mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0.
>
> Thanks,
> Glen
>
>
