From: fwells12 (fwells12@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 28 2000 - 18:12:46 GMT-3
Thanks for your reply Brian,
I am playing around with different IP add/mask combos to get a good grip on
the best way to deal with this issue. I am using different size networks
on the loopbacks to simulate being in a large OSPF environment.
Regarding your statement 'It's going to be advertised as a /32 anyway if
you don't change the ospf network type to something other than the
default.', was this directed at external route summarization? I used the
area range command to change the advertisment and can only see the following
route in other routers route tables:
O IA 192.168.0.0/18 [110/1563] via 147.1.5.5, 00:00:05, Serial0
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Hescock <bhescock@cisco.com>
To: Earl Aboytes <Earl@dnssystems.com>
Cc: 'Connary, Julie Ann' <jconnary@cisco.com>; fwells12
<fwells12@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 12:46 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF network statement
> Earl's answer is probably the one you're looking for if we understand your
> requirement correctly. But if you aren't told you must only have one
> network entry, I agree with the other person that said to use the ip
> address off of the interface and 0.0.0.0 wildcard bits, as in:
>
> network 172.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
>
> There's less chance for error and it's obvious if the proctor changes it
> because the ip address will always be the ip address from the interface
> and the wildcard bits are always 0.0.0.0. This is also a recommended
> way to do it in a production network *IF* you don't have a lot of
> interfaces, it makes troubleshooting far easier.
>
> By the way, why such a huge network for the loopback, why not a /24
> or a /30 or /32? It's going to be advertised as a /32 anyway if you don't
> change the ospf network type to something other than the default.
>
> Brian
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Earl Aboytes wrote:
>
> > I think this is the answer that you are looking for.
> >
> > Network 192.168.0.0 0.0.63.255 area 0
> >
> > This would put all networks 192.168.0.0 through 192.168.63.0 in area 0
> >
> > Watch out that you don't have any other conflicts. To be cautious I
always
> > make separate entries and make sure that my masks match my wildcards.
> >
> > Earl Aboytes CCIE 6097
> >
> > PS. Sam@datastreet, if you read this post I want you to know that I
think
> > that it's pretty cool how involved you are in this CCIE thing. My dad
can't
> > even remember the meaning of the four letters C-C-I-E.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Connary, Julie Ann [mailto:jconnary@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:51 AM
> > To: fwells12
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: OSPF network statement
> >
> > Since each loopback interface will be a host route, use 4 network
> > statements like:
> >
> > network 192.168.20.2 0.0.0.0 area X
> >
> > Julie Ann
> >
> > At 11:17 AM 12/28/2000 -0800, fwells12 wrote:
> > >I have the following IP addresses configured as loopback interfaces on
=
> > >an OSPF router. What is the correct command to insert these networks =
> > >into the OSPF process in the most efficient manner? By that, I mean =
> > >conserving the maximum amount of IP addresses.
> > >
> > >interface Loopback0
> > > ip address 192.168.20.2 255.255.248.0
> > >!
> > >interface Loopback1
> > > ip address 192.168.28.2 255.255.248.0
> > >!
> > >interface Loopback2
> > > ip address 192.168.36.2 255.255.248.0
> > >!
> > >interface Loopback3
> > > ip address 192.168.44.2 255.255.248.0=20
> > >
> > >Cheers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:26:12 GMT-3