From: Ilya Mazhara (willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 05:19:55 GMT-3
I hope policy-route as default netw/def-originate is nof form of static
routes but do same job.
"Chia Kim Seng, Consultant, SCSNW-Sales" wrote:
>
> policy route is a form of static route and static route is not acceptable in
> the lab exam.
>
> Regards
> Chia Kim Seng
>
> SCS Networks Pte Ltd
> 7 Bedok South Road
> Singapore 469272
> Tel : 065-2403164
> Fax: 065-2403110
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mask Of Zorro [mailto:ciscokid00@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 3:47 AM
> To: rshopkins@earthlink.net; wchen@iloka.com; a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same major network
>
> This is cracking me up...
>
> Why not policy route on R2 for the four networks in question? Making sure,
> of course, to set the local-policy as well for traffic that originates from
> R2 (pings and such)...
>
> I have seen lots of scenarios where a longer mask resides in the OSPF domain
>
> and needs to get to the IGRP domain - in these cases the answer was to
> summarize on the classful boundary. This is the first one I have seen where
> we need to get the shorter mask into the IGRP domain. Personally, I'd just
> avoid the whole issue altogether and policy route since we're only dealing
> with 4 networks.
>
> Z
>
> >From: "Rob Hopkins" <rshopkins@earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: "Rob Hopkins" <rshopkins@earthlink.net>
> >To: "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>, "'Alejandro Cadarso'"
> ><a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com>
> >CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:28:46 -0400
> >
> >youre 100% right, but it you could add secondary ip's to r2 to compensate.
> >I agree this is getting horrendous, but what other options are avail ?
> >
> >1> static routes (not allowed)
> >2> classless routing protocol (not allowed)
> >3> route maps (limited use at best)
> >4> tweaking subnet masks and using secondary addresses (very ugly,but
> >semi-functional)
> >5> worse yet, bridge ip
> >6> ducttape and wd40
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>
> >To: "'Alejandro Cadarso'" <a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com>; "Rob Hopkins"
> ><rshopkins@earthlink.net>
> >Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:01 PM
> >Subject: RE: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> >
> >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > This is a neat solution, however you could not reach .25.0-.27.0
> >included
> >in
> > > the .24/22 mask. So you lose 3/4 of your reachability and of course
> >also
> > > make .36-.39 unusable as you already pointed out. So while this
> >solution
> > > dose not break any rules but also did not fully achieve its primary goal
> > > which is to make the .24/22 network reachable from the IGRP side.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alejandro Cadarso [mailto:a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:19 PM
> > > To: Rob Hopkins
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > It's perfect, that's the solution, or at least one of them ( I cant
> > > think in any other ).
> > > Of course there is the limitation you posted:
> > >
> > > 172.16.37.0 thru 172.16.39.0 are not available any more but that doesn't
> > > breaks any stated rule.
> > > Alejandro
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob Hopkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > come on guys, dont give up so easy...
> > > >
> > > > change the subnet mask on r1 to /22, I know we were always taught
> >subnet
> > > > masks should
> > > > match, but as long as you keep track of what each router "thinks" its
> > > > connected to, it will be alright..
> > > > If R1 needed to have any routes from 172.16.37.0 thru 172.16.39.0
> >you're
> > > > gonna have bigger problems,
> > > > (unless they are hanging out on your serial port..) but since it wasnt
> >in
> > > > this case..
> > > >
> > > > output follows:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3 subnets
> > > > C 172.16.36.0 is directly connected, Serial0
> > > > I 172.16.24.0 [100/8976] via 172.16.35.1, 00:01:56, Serial0
> > > > [100/8976] via 172.16.36.1, 00:00:07, Serial0
> > > > C 172.16.6.0 is directly connected, Loopback100
> > > > r2#
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alejandro Cadarso" <a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com>
> > > > To: "Darren Ward" <dward@pla.net.au>; "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>;
> > > > "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <lkounkar@uu.net>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:37 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Good idea Darren,
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps your way could work, the problem is that when I try to put
> >any
> > > >> IP address from the /24's in a loopback I have:
> > > >>
> > > >> >r4(config-if)#ip address 172.16.26.1 255.255.255.0
> > > >> >172.16.26.0 overlaps with Ethernet0
> > > >>
> > > >> This sounds logical because in this case we would have two interfaces
> >in
> > > >> the same /24 network
> > > >>
> > > >> Louie Answer could be better the problem is that I have another OSPF
> > > >> Router in the same mayor network and I'm not allowed to change it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks very much for your help, but I think there is no answer.
> > > >>
> > > >> Alejandro.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Darren Ward wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hows this sound for a silly idea:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The requirement is to get a /20 into a /24 IGRP domain.
> > > >>> The second requirement is that no static's can be used at all.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Create a second OSPF process on the redistributing router (ospf 2
> >for
> > > >>
> > > > arguments
> > > >
> > > >>> sake)
> > > >>> Create one or more loopbacks and put the 4 /24's on it.
> > > >>> Redistribute the ospf 2 into IGRP and IGRP into ospf 1.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You may need to do some tweaking on the border router, maybe policy
> > > >>
> > > > routing at
> > > >
> > > >>> worst.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Darren
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Walter Chen wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The "area x range" command won't work in this case because it won't
> > > >>>
> > > > change
> > > >
> > > >>>> the way directly connected networks are redistributed to IGRP.
> >Using
> > > >>>
> > > > static
> > > >
> > > >>>> routes in this case is preferred because you only need four of
> >them.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> However, if you were asked to redistribute /20 OSPF into /28 IGRP
> >(in
> > > >>>
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > >>>> case you have to configure 256 static routes!) or you were not
> >allowed
> > > >>>
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > >>>> use static routes, then you could configure a separate major
> >network
> > > >>>
> > > > with a
> > > >
> > > >>>> /24 mask in OSPF domain, say, 192.168.1.0/24 and redistribute it
> >into
> > > >>>
> > > > IGRP.
> > > >
> > > >>>> >From the IGRP router, configure this network to be your
> > > >>>
> > > > default-network to
> > > >
> > > >>>> let you reach the OSPF 172.16.x.x/20 networks.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If you are now allowed to use either static or IGRP
> >default-network,
> > > >>>
> > > > then
> > > >
> > > >>>> you're stuck.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Walter
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>> From: Michel GASPARD [mailto:mgaspard@cisco.com]
> > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:12 AM
> > > >>>> To: Alejandro Cadarso
> > > >>>> Cc: ccielab
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor
> >network
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Alejandro,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Did you already tried the "area x range" command?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Michel
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Alejandro Cadarso wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm playing with the following scenario and was unable to imagine
> >how
> > > >>>>> can I get 172.16.24.0/22 redistributed from ospf to igrp for r2
> > > >>>>> inserting it in its routing table.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Any suggestions will be appreciated. Of course neither Default
> >routing
> > > >>>>> nor static are allowed.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ospf igrp loop0
> > > >>>>> -------------r1------------------r2----172.16.6.0/24
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 172.16.24.0/22 172.16.36.0/24
> > > >>>>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > > >>>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > > >>
> > > >> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> > > **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 - 10:29:52 GMT-3