From: Nigel Taylor (nigel_taylor@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 18 2001 - 01:48:49 GMT-3
All,
I'm still working through the Slattery/Burton ex. #11, pg. 328-338 and
I'm still trying to get a fix on some of the things I'm seeing. My fist
concern was with the summary route that is shown in the London router for
162.16.0.0/16(pg. 333). In looking at the London configs I see no summary
route defined under the ospf 200 process that would create the above
mentioned summary route in the routing table. I figured this was either a
mis-print or a lack thereof which is fine.
However, when you look at the routing table of the Tokyo router(pg. 330)
there is a eigrp external to the 162.16.0.0/16 network. With the existing
configuration I do get this route as noted but once the OSPF adjacency
between london and tokyo achieves the full state the OSPF summary for the
162.16.0.0/16 replaces the eigrp external route in Tokyo because of the
lower AD of OSPF(as it should).
My other thoughts also goto the different techniques used to pass the
summarized routes to external routing domains. In ex. #10 the example made
use of the interface specific command;
"ip summary-address eigrp <process-id> <summarized network & mask>
to summarize the OSPF network into the EIGRP routing domain, but in ex.#11
it was done through the use of a redistributed summary route.
I just wanted to know if there are any clear guildlines in use when
summarized routes are proprogated into external routing domains....
TIA
Nigel...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:33 GMT-3