From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 20:26:43 GMT-3
Nigel,
It has to be a classful network that's not connected to your router and
it has to be in your igrp routing table. Please check the archives,
there's a lot of information about it in there.
Brian
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Nigel Taylor wrote:
> All,
> In using the "ip default-network" command to try and have a default
> route passed into my IGRP routing domain to my OSPF domain. I don't
> see the command in the config for it, what I do get is this..a static route
> to an interface that doesn't exist.
>
> The command I issued was: ip default-network 172.17.59.0 and added
> this network under the IGRP process in question, what I get this in the
> config is......
>
> ip route 172.17.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.17.59.0
>
> The weird thing is I can't get it out even after using the "no ip
> default-network"
> command. The only way I've been able to get it out is by doing a "wr erase"
> and reloading the router.
>
> Has anyone experienced this before....Please tell me what I'm doing wrong.
>
> Nigel.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David FAHED <dfahed@outremer.com>
> To: Nigel Taylor <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; Chuck Larrieu <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: IGRP/EIGRP/OSPF redistribution cont'd....
>
>
> > So you can summarize the 172.17.59.0/29 with a /26 when redistribute EIGRP
> in
> > ospf (R3). On R1 you can create another ospf process make a mutual
> > redistribution between the 2 ospf process with a double summarization
> > 172.17.59.0/26 and 172.17.59.64/26 when come back to the original ospf
> process.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nigel Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > > Another part of the lab requirements also said "NO"
> static
> > > routes could be configured.. So I'm read through like every book I've
> > > got... and checking like every IGRP doc on CCO for and answer...
> > >
> > > Thoughts anyone.....?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Nigel..
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: David FAHED <dfahed@outremer.com>
> > > To: Nigel Taylor <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:24 PM
> > > Subject: Re: IGRP/EIGRP/OSPF redistribution cont'd....
> > >
> > > > Your IGRP is configured with a /26 so you can not see any with a mask
> > > different
> > > > /26. So you will not see 172.17.59.48/28, 172.17.59.68/30 and
> > > 172.17.59.0/29.
> > > > The solution is two summarize all this route with a /26 mask. The
> problem
> > > is
> > > > that igrp does not have a summarization command, so the way to
> accomplish
> > > > summarization is to configure two static route and then redistribute
> that
> > > route
> > > > int igrp:
> > > >
> > > > ip route 172.17.59.0 255.255.255.192 null0
> > > > ip route 172.17.59.64 255.255.255.192 null0
> > > >
> > > > router igrp x
> > > > redistribute static metric ....
> > > >
> > > > Hope this help;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nigel Taylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey All,
> > > > > I'm also working on a OSPF - EIGRP - IGRP redistribution
> > > lab. In
> > > > > my case the lab
> > > > > required you to only use 172.17.59.x for the EIGRP and OSPF
> domains.
> > > The
> > > > > requirement
> > > > > called for the IGRP domain that is connected to use 171.68.62.93 w/
> a 26
> > > bit
> > > > > mask.
> > > > > Let's try some ASCII art.....
> > > > >
> > > > > EIGRP(E1)------R3 -------(S1)---(FR, P-t-P, Area
> > > > > 0)---R2 ---------R1----(Area 1)
> > > > > / \
> > > > > / \
> > > > > IGRP OSPF(Area 2)
> > > > > (E0) (E2)
> > > > > / \
> > > > > R4 R5
> > > > > \
> > > > > (Area 3)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, I've got the EIGRP(E1) using 172.17.59.0/29. The OSPF domain is
> > > > > using 172.17.59.48/28(S1) and (E2) using 172.17.59.68/30. As I said
> the
> > > > > IGRP(E0)
> > > > > is assigned 171.68.62.93 w a /26 on R3's E0 interface. I've read
> > > through
> > > > > the list thread
> > > > > on this but I'm still unable to see a route to the OSPF from the
> IGRP
> > > > > domain.
> > > > > I'm so tired at this point can anyone shed some light on this for
> me...
> > > > >
> > > > > TIA
> > > > >
> > > > > Nigel...
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: David FAHED <dfahed@outremer.com>
> > > > > To: Mike McSpedon <mike@mentortech.com>
> > > > > Cc: fwells12 <fwells12@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 1:05 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: IGRP/OSPF redistribution question.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I forgot something:
> > > > > > If OSPF have a /20 network you can use15 /24 network to advertise
> this
> > > > > network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike McSpedon wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding the first approach - I'd be careful to do that only if
> the
> > > > > routes
> > > > > > > in the OSPF domain aren't summarizable into a /24 (e.g., OSPF
> has a
> > > /20
> > > > > > > that needs to be reachable from the IGRP domain). Regarding the
> > > second
> > > > > > > approach, since Paige is an ASBR, you'll need to use the
> > > > > "summary-address"
> > > > > > > not the "area-range" command to summarize the /26 and /28 into
> /24s
> > > for
> > > > > IGRP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > > -Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 08:05 AM 1/21/01 -0400, David FAHED wrote:
> > > > > > > >There is two way to do that :
> > > > > > > >1) Create a loopback on Paige for example 10.0.0.1 - Use the
> > > default
> > > > > > > >network 10.0.0.0 to announce a default route into igrp process
> > > > > > > >2) All the network with a mask differente to /24 use in the
> ospf
> > > domain
> > > > > > > >have to be announce with /24. You can use an area range with
> the
> > > two
> > > > > > > >route in gibson - for the route 172.20.113.192/26 area x range
> > > > > > > >172.20.113.0 255.255.255.0 -for the route 172.20.114.48/28 area
> x
> > > range
> > > > > > > >172.20.113.0 255.255.255.0 - After doing that you will have
> only
> > > /24
> > > > > > > >network on paige and you can redistribute into IGRP without
> problem
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Hope this help!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >fwells12 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In Jeff Doyle's example of OSPF/IGRP redistribution on page
> 710,
> > > is
> > > > > =
> > > > > > > > > there any way of letting the IGRP domain be able to ping the
> > > VLSM =
> > > > > > > > > networks?
> > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:38 GMT-3