From: Chuck Larrieu (chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 16 2001 - 12:14:56 GMT-3
There has been a discussion along this line on the other group. Notice that
the network in question is the "all zeros" network. This can be problematic
in a classful environment. Check out:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_c
/ipcprt1/1cdipadr.htm#xtocid105602
(watch the wrap)
I suggest that what you are seeing is the result of the classful behaviour
of IGRP, in conjunction with the old world view that the all zeros subnet is
illegal.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Darren Ward
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:20 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: IGRP Question
Hi Guys,
A simple one I'm sure but I don't know the answer without default or
static routes etc....
Consider a network using 172.16.0.0/16 split into all /24's
172.16.0.0/24 and 172.16.1.0/24 are configured on interfaces on an edge
router and the
command 'redistribute connected metric blah blah' is in the IGRP
process.
Now on the remote IGRP routers all i see is 172.16.1.0/24 i do not see
172.16.0.0
Is this because IGRP assumes any route for 172.16.0.0 is the classful
/16 route since there is no subnet mask info in IGRP and ignores it
because it does not match the /24 mask required?
Bit confused about this one as I thought as long as i used a /24 mask on
172.16.0.0 it should still redistribute.
What's a workaround for this?
Darren
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:47 GMT-3