From: Andrew (arousch@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 16:16:36 GMT-3
At 10:29 PM 1/24/01 -0800, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>BTW, just for fun consider using the interface address as the mask. E.g.
>192.168.7.47 192.168.7.47 area 1 it is indeed a legitimate mask, as it
What? 192.168.7.47 is a legitimate mask? Your router will laugh at you if
you attempt hostIP netMASK (same as hostIP)
>places the desired interface into OSPF. Just remember the law of unintended
>consequences :->
>
>Question to all - do you find yourselves slipping back and forth between
>inverse mask / wildcard mask / subnet mask usage?
>
>I find myself more than I care entering 0.0.0.0 as a subnet mask and
>255.255.255.240 as a wildcard mask. Is this a stage I am going through as I
>pound routers more and more in my prep?
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Les
>Hardin
>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:01 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: OSPF Config Styles
>
>All,
>
>I'd like to engage in a religious discussion for a moment -- OPSF
>configuration styles.
>
>I know that there are at least 2 schools of thought out there regarding
>OSPF config.
>
>Under router ospf 1:
>1) Use network command with classfull IP addresses
>2) Use network command with 32-bit interface address, ensuring that only
>the desired interface is activated for OSPF, then perhaps using area range
>to summarize.
>
>I'd like to hear from a few folks as to what their preference is and
>why. I'm interested as to where the majority of folks sit on this
>topic. Thanks for your inputs.
>
>Les
>yada yada yada certs
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:43 GMT-3