From: Mask Of Zorro (ciscokid00@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 13:27:44 GMT-3
Hmmm... Can't break the NDA, but I can say that you will find that you are
basically wrong Johnny. The ONLY time you will be able to use a static route
in the lab is when the instruction says you can.
However, policy routing can be used. You just can't use the ip route
command...
Z
>From: "Johnny Dedon" <johnny.dedon@exodus.net>
>Reply-To: "Johnny Dedon" <johnny.dedon@exodus.net>
>To: "Chia Kim Seng, Consultant, SCSNW-Sales"
><chiaks@scsnetworks.scs.com.sg>, "'Mask Of Zorro'"
><ciscokid00@hotmail.com>
>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same major network
>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:14:51 -0500
>
>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