From: David FAHED (dfahed@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jan 27 2001 - 19:58:29 GMT-3
Excuse me I've just understand the solution....
David FAHED wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to make the Lab 501. I observed that the solution:
> 1) don't have all the filter
> 2) I don't understand how in the solution they use the command summary-addres
s
> under ospf process.
> I use summary-address when I want to summarize a external route into ospf.( A
nd
> not the inverse)
>
> Example:
> 10.1.1.0/24---------------Eigrp-R1-Ospf--------------10.0.0.0/8
>
> On R1 :
> Router ospf 1
> summary-address 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
> ! With this command it will announce the summarize 10.0.0.0/8 in the ospf dom
ain.
>
> But in the solution of Fatkid they use the summary-address to redistribute an
> ospf
> route into igrp.
>
> Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>
> > Smarter people than I have a diversity of opinion here. A couple of random
> > thoughts:
> >
> > Using 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 is quick and dirty. It places all the
> > interfaces you want into the process, and in some cases some that you don't
> > want. Definitely NOT recommended for the Lab, where you will undoubtedly be
> > told not to advertise something or other
> >
> > Using a.b.c.d 0.0.0.0 serves to place only the specific interface into the
> > process. Specific, clean, easy to troubleshoot, and in any environment is
> > supposed to make troubleshooting easier. Everyone, how many times have you
> > done things this way, found something or other wasn't working, and it took
a
> > while for your sore eyes to see you made a mistake in the a.b.c.d portion?
> > In a time sensitive environment like the Lab this still might be the easies
t
> > thing to troubleshot
> >
> > a.b.c.d inverse mask easiest one to make a mistake with, and hardest one t
o
> > troubleshoot, IMHO. Especially in an VLSM environment.
> >
> > 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
> > 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 L
es
> > 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 - 10:27:45 GMT-3