with regards to my recent post 'https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2116099?tstart=30' Proxying traffic through VPN/GRE tunnel,
I found the feature to use 'ip next hop recursive' inside a route-map declaration.
Cisco explains this feature to route traffic to a particular host which is NOT in the same subnet or seems to be more far away then just one hob.
Actually I am not sure whether I don't get that right in reason of an English language gap or if the explanation of the next hob recursive
facility indeed a bit insufficient.
Unfortunately I was not able to figure out, if the order of the next hop declaration matters or not.
my question simply is, if the first command inside a route-map section is
set ip next-hop 1xx.xxx.xxx.xxx
and the second:
set ip next-hop recursive 2xx.xxx.xxx.xxx
what happens in case the first ip (starting with 1) is not available?
will the router then mind the first IP and try to reach the first ip involving recursiv from the second?
What should be the recursive IP address? The address of the host I try to reach or the "real" address of
the hop that routes to?
this confuses me a lot.
I try to forward http traffic from one network through a VPN tunnel to a proxy server behind the vpn.
I have the following setup at present:
Host 172.16.16.2 -> | <- 172.16.14.2=VPN Dest. ------ 172.16.14.1=VPN Source-> | <-- 172.16.15.2=Proxy -----> Internet
a trace from the Host site router (172.16.16.1) shows me 2 hops:
the word 'hop' makes me wondering as I do understand it as a kind of routing node, thus a "hand over point" from one network to the next.
In my eyes it would make sense, to define the proxy address with 'set ip next-hop' and if this can't accessed directly it will then tried to
reach over the 'real hop ip' declared with 'set ip next-hop recursive' what in my case would be the source of the VPN tunnel: 172.16.14.1.
I really appreaciate any help & advise in order to light up my minds - as I am struggling to get this running since 5 days.... :-(
thank you in advance & all the best!