From: Sokhna Ndoye (sndoye@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Oct 13 2000 - 13:55:11 GMT-3
the ospf summary address is used to summarize external routes into ospf, not
to summarize out of ospf, you will have to use default-network on the
redistributing router....
Sokhna Ndoye
>From: "Cheung, Tom [JJMI-AR]" <TCHEUNG@MEDUS.JNJ.com>
>Reply-To: "Cheung, Tom [JJMI-AR]" <TCHEUNG@MEDUS.JNJ.com>
>To: "'Aaron K. Dixon'" <adixon@houston.omnes.slb.com>,
>ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: routing problem
>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:17:30 -0400
>
>But I'm not allow to use static routes in this exercise. I'm not sure if
>default-network will be considered static route?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aaron K. Dixon [mailto:adixon@houston.omnes.slb.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 3:13 PM
>To: Cheung, Tom [JJMI-AR]; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: routing problem
>
>
>If you've summarized the routes to 172.17.59.0/26 then it won't know about
>subnets above 192 due to your summary mask. I'm not sure what you mean by
>finding the 182.17.59.0 subnet. I don't see that in your table. You could
>use a default network on the IGRP router to allow it to route to the next
>hop or send an additional summary route to the 172.17.59.192/26.
>
>Regards,
>Aaron K. Dixon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Cheung, Tom [JJMI-AR]
>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:48 PM
>To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
>Subject: FW: routing problem
>
>
>
>
>All,
>
>I have a general routing question. Here's the scenario:
>
> serial serial
> r5 ---------------------- R1 ------------------> frame cloud
> 172.17.59.64/26 (IGRP) 172.17.59.x (OSPF, VLSM)
>
>On OSPF side 172.17.59.x is variable subnetted into /28, /29 and /30.
>I injected the OSPF routes into IGRP by "summary-address 172.17.59.0
>255.255.255.192"
>
>From R5, I'm able to ping 172.17.59.5, 59.9, 59.17 etc. but was unable to
>ping 59.193. It is "unroutable".
>
>My explanation to why 192.17.59.193 is "not routable" is that R5 knows only
>172.17.59.0/26 and 172.16.59.64/26. 192.17.59.192 is not a 192.17.59.0
>subnet. Therefore R5 drops packets for 192.17.59.193. But then, shouldn't
>"ip classless" force the router to do longest match and find 182.17.59.0
>for
>59.193?
>
>
>R5's show ip route, debug IP packet output during the ping fail are
>attached
>for your reference.
>[r5#
>r5#sh ip ro
>Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
> D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
> N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
> E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
> i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, * - candidate
>default
> U - per-user static route, o - ODR
>
>Gateway of last resort is not set
>
> 172.17.0.0/26 is subnetted, 2 subnets
>I 172.17.59.0 [100/159250] via 172.17.59.65, 00:00:17, Serial0
>C 172.17.59.64 is directly connected, Serial0
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>C 10.1.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
>r5#
>r5#
>r5#deb ip packet
>IP packet debugging is on
>r5#ping 172.17.59.193
>
>Type escape sequence to abort.
>Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.17.59.193, timeout is 2 seconds:
>
>00:11:20: IP: s=172.17.59.66 (local), d=172.17.59.193, len 100, unroutable.
>00:11:21: IP: s=10.1.2.1 (local), d=255.255.255.255 (Ethernet0), len 52,
>sending
> broad/multicast
>00:11:22: IP: s=172.17.59.66 (local), d=172.17.59.193, len 100, unroutable.
>00:11:24: IP: s=172.17.59.66 (local), d=172.17.59.193, len 100, unroutable.
>00:11:26: IP: s=172.17.59.66 (local), d=172.17.59.193, len 100, unroutable.
>00:11:28: IP: s=172.17.59.66 (local), d=172.17.59.193, len 100, unroutable.
>Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>
>
>
>
>
>Tom
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:26 GMT-3