From: Nigel Taylor (nigel_taylor@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 21:06:33 GMT-3
Kevin,
The 172.17.59.0 (172.17.0.0) is not in the IGRP domain.
Currently the IGRP domain is using
171.68.62.93 on the interface with a 26 bit mask. I'm trying to get OSPF
routes(172.17.59.16/28, 172.17.59.1/29, etc.. ) redistributed into the IGRP
domain.
Any thoughts...
Nigel..
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Baumgartner <kbaumgar@cisco.com>
To: <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: IGRP/EIGRP/OSPF redistribution cont'd....
> So this is a common problem most people make when using ip default
network.
> The address you use has to be different major network than is being
> used by IGRP. So in your case 172.17.0.0 (subnet 172.17.59.0) is already
> part of IGRP. Don't use this as the default network. Otherwise you will
> get this wierd route.
>
> Use something like 172.18.0.0 as the ip default network. And make sure
this
> route is in the IGRP routing table.
> A few ways to do this
>
> 1. Static route to null0 and redistribute static into to IGRP.
> Not likely a good way to do it for the lab.
> 2. Create a loopback interface and redistribute connected into IGRP.
> 3. Redistribute from another routing protocol (OSPF).
>
> Now getting rid of this route isn't easy. I think you can do "no
> default-network 172.17.0.0", or "no ip route". I found that I then had
> to save and reload the router.
>
> Kevin
>
> >
> > 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