From: mark salmon (masalmon@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 25 2000 - 14:53:00 GMT-3
I guess both will work. The problem with NAT is its complexity. I
suppose I could use static NAT. However, I think the default command is
better as if the router gets a packet destined for that address, it will
respond. If it gets one that i cannot match in its routing table and
it does not have a gateway of last resort, it will drop the packet.
Art Davis wrote:
>
> It will advertise a default route into the domain, if it has one. If "always"
> is stated, it will advertise one whether it has one or not!
> But I think the answer to your original question is to use our good friend
> NAT. Then you can ping that address all you want and it won't be in the
> routing table.
>
> Art
>
> mark salmon <masalmon@cisco.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all who responded. I am still confused by this command. DOes
> it means the router that this command is run on will advertise itself as
> a default router to peers in the OSPF domain? If so I fully understand
> it. IF not, then can someone explain how that command works?
>
> Andres Zeller wrote:
> >
> > Default origniate always.
> >
> > mark salmon wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone give me an example on how to configure a default route
> > > (without using static routes) on an OSPF router?
> > >
> > > "Aaron K. Dixon" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Step 10 says to create a default route to that router so that all ospf
> > > > routers see it. I assume he wants you to advertise the default route
> which
> > > > will then allow a ping of that network. If you don't have a route for
> that
> > > > subnet it will take the default route which resides on the router with
> the
> > > > loopback that you configured.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Aaron K. Dixon
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > > mark salmon
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 12:16 AM
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: CCbootcamp
> > > >
> > > > Hey guys, I was reading the following practice lab at ccbootcamp.com
> and
> > > > I ran into a scenario which puzzled me. Take a look at item 11 under
> > > > task 3. Does anyone know how to make a route/address reachable without
> > > > having that address/route be placed in a routing table? I am assuming
> > > > it is asking us to make this address reachable without using static
> > > > routes. Does anyone else concur?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ccbootcamp.com/samplelab.htm
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Mark Salmon
> > > > Project Engineer
> > > > Cisco Professional Services
> > > > Phone:773-695-8235
> > > > Pager:800-365-4578
> > > > email: masalmon@cisco.com
>
> --
>
> Arthur Davis
> Network Engineer
> Altra Energy Technologies
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:58 GMT-3