From: Johnny Dedon (johnny.dedon@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 11:14:51 GMT-3
Chia,
It is absolutely not true that static routes are not acceptable in the lab.
Static routes are included in the IOS command set. Everything there is fair
game including static routes. It is true that static routes are generally
not allowed in the lab but the requirements of the tasks specified usually
elliminate directly or indirectly configuration options including static
routes. My advice is to read the question carefully and if you are not sure
about the use of the static route, ask the proctor.
My two cents,
Johnny Dedon
Senior Staff Consultant
Exodus Professional Services
johnny.dedon@exodus.net
www.exodus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chia Kim Seng, Consultant, SCSNW-Sales"
<chiaks@scsnetworks.scs.com.sg>
To: "'Mask Of Zorro'" <ciscokid00@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same major network
> 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