From: Peter Van Oene (vantech@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Sep 12 1999 - 23:11:25 GMT-3
I like this idea myself. However, if your lab works on a 10.0.0.0 network
for example, you then have to propagate these 192.168 routes which
may not be a valid solution.
Peter Van Oene
Senior Systems Engineer
UNIS LUMIN Inc.
www.unislumin.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Aarons <jaarons@hotmail.com>
To: <vantech@sympatico.ca>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Loopback use on labs
> I have seen a lot of sample labs that have the router loopback as the
router
> number.
>
> ie
> R1 = 192.168.1.1
> R2 = 192.168.2.2
> R3 = 192.168.3.3
> R4 = 192.168.4.4
>
> This helps you keep it straight in my mind what the IP address is of the
> router, kinda makes sense.
>
> I can't think of a way to summarize other than;
>
> 1=00000001
> 2=00000010
> 3=00000011
> 4=00000100
> 240=11111000
>
> 192.168.0.0 255.255.240.0
> 192.168.0.0/21
>
> Any thoughts ?
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Peter Van Oene" <vantech@sympatico.ca>
> Reply-To: "Peter Van Oene" <vantech@sympatico.ca>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Loopback use on labs
> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:52:20 -0700
>
> I am trying to theorize on the best way to use loopbacks in the lab. My
> goal
> is to have easily identifiable addresses so I can spot them quickly in my
> routing tables and make reference to them easier for other configs
> (tunnels/dlsw etc) However, I expect the need to organize them for
> summarization will
> be real.
>
> Anyone have any good ideas on the best way to pick these addresses? I'm
> assuming using a completely different subnet and additional routing to
> propagate its info would be unwise.
>
>
>
> Peter Van Oene
> Senior Systems Engineer
> UNIS LUMIN Inc.
> www.unislumin.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:50 GMT-3