[72893] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Quick question about secondary addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jesper Skriver)
Sat Jul 31 10:57:34 2004
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:56:57 +0200
From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>
To: Dan Lockwood <dlockwood@shastacoe.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>,
Dan Lockwood <dlockwood@shastacoe.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <D87C1436D1DECB4A8FEB646F4FFDCE8601B7DA57@EXCHANGE08.shastalink.k12.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:21:06AM -0700, Dan Lockwood wrote:
> I'm in a debate with a guy over the use of 'ip address x.x.x.x s.s.s.s
> secondary' on Cisco gear. I seem to remember reading that the use of
> secondary addresses is a bad idea, but I can't recall the details of
> why. Process switched?
No, traffic to hosts within a subnet configured as secondaries
will be CEF switched.
The only "bad" thing I can think of with secondaries, is that it's often
not what you want, why not split it on layer 2 as well, and get the
benefit of a smaller broadcast domain ?
> Can anyone offer a resource or more specific information?
/Jesper
