I have a layer 3 switch that acts as my central router. It has several BVIs that have IP addresses for my internal subnets. All my internal networks are 192.168.x.x 255.255.255.0. I have a default route that points to my firewall for Internet connectivity. I also have one other static route that points to an internal router that has two ethernet interfaces, both of which are in the 192.168.x.x
255.255.255.0n range.My company has been acquired by a larger company. We have a WAN link installed that connects to their network. They sent my a list of subnets to add to my layer 3 switch so their network will be available to us. The routes consist of a couple of host routes, a half-dozen subnets in the 192.168.x.x range, none of which conflict with my present addressing scheme. They also included a large number of subnets in the 10.x.x.x/16 and 10.x.x.x/24 range.
The WAN link has static routes pointing to all of my internal subnets. It will also have a default route pointing to a router on the larger company's network.
I will configure a spare FastEternet port on my layer 3 switch with an IP address and mask on the same network as the Ethernet port on the WAN link. I will add the following static routes to my layer 3 switch:
static routes to hosts static routes to 192.168.x.x networks
The next hop router for these will be the Ethernet port on the WAN link.
I thought to minimize the size of the routing table on my layer 3 switch, I would configure a static summary route to the 10.x.x.x subnets on the other side of the WAN link:
10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 pointing to the Ethernet port on the WAN link.Since I have no 10.x.x.x subnets on my side of the WAN link and there are no 10.x.x.x subnets on the Internet, I thought this would be a good strategy.
Is this summary route done correctly? Any suggestions will be welcomed.
Thanks.