From: Sanjay Maljure (smaljure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jul 15 1999 - 11:51:21 GMT-3
Hi,
Your naming convention is confusing. Can u please provide some more clarity of
the names of the routers in the middle.
You would also need to give the addressing information of the links(with subnet
masks) as this is key to the behaviour of routing protocols RIP/IGRP.
Thanks
Sanjay Maljure
"Robichaux, Errol J (CAP, ITS, US)" wrote:
> 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