From: Ron Trunk (rtrunk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jul 15 1999 - 11:08:10 GMT-3
Errol,
On the contrary! You are experiencing good luck. You have configured
yourself into a classic routing problem of discontiguous subnets. Welcome
to the wonderful world of classfull routing!
There are a couple of ways out of this, and a lot depends on how you've
constructed your scenario. If you have Jeff Doyle's book, see pages
203-210. As a hint, think about secondary addresses.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Robichaux, Errol J (CAP, ITS, US) <Errol.Robichaux@gecits.ge.com>
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com' <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 9:57 AM
Subject: VLSM - FLSM Problem
>I am experiencing minimal luck in my home lab with the following scenario:
>
>On edge-routers R1 and R4 I have networks of 150.100.1.0/24 and
>150.100.2.0/24 respectively. The first edge-router is running IGRP and the
>second edge-router is running RIP. OSPF and EIGRP lie in the middle. The
>routing protocol redistribution would be as follows if laid out:
>
> IGRP - OSPF - EIGRP - RIP
>
>R1 runs only IGRP. R3 runs IGRP and OSPF, therefore handling
>redistribution. R5 runs OSPF and EIGRP, therefore handling redistribution.
>R4 runs RIP and EIGRP, therefore handling redistribution.
>
>The problem that I am experiencing is this. Since both routing protocols
at
>the edges do not support VLSM, they are advertising 150.100.0.0/16.
>Therefore, the routers in the middle only see one route.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Errol
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:42 GMT-3