Harm in using a router when only a layer 2 switch is needed?

[jmaxwellUSAF]

Hi.

I've discovered that my company is using a router when only a L2 switch is needed. The EIGRP routing table has MANY /32 routes to hundreds of local workstations. How bad is this for the router hardware? 

Is there a practical reason this should be changed?

Thank you.

[balaji.bandi · Accepted solution]

Good and Bad. depends on the network and device model and deployment

we are still not have information to asses what your statement is correct.

Device : Model

IOS - what version code running

what is the CPU process histtor

can you post same config to look

as long as the CPU level and memory not go high, you ok to use how ever you like.

All can not be deployed 100% CVD ( that is impossible) do sure there is a deviation all time.

[Karsten Iwen]

To find out if there is a reason to change this is to find out why it was implemented in this very special way.

[MHM Cisco World]

You can not change it, this Local Host is either PPP or other remote access that get IP from Pool and router add this IP as Local IP. 
the SW can not do that. 

[jmaxwellUSAF]

Good point. Maybe the router now has important connection-specific information. Though I expect this was configured this way because of poor network design.

[MHM Cisco World]

No this local /32 connection represent host.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

"How bad is this for the router hardware?"

I cannot see how it would be bad for the hardware.

"Is there a practical reason this should be changed?"

Well, often small routers don't have the forwarding capacity of a small switch.  I.e. the network might be running slower than it would with a switch.

That said, there might be something very "special" about what appears to be an unusual setup.

Further, you mention hundreds of local workstations?  When you get into hundreds, you often start to run into L2 scalability issues.