From: Joe Shmoe (herro91@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 22 2001 - 21:09:20 GMT-3
Is there a rule against making this /28 and say, a /27
part of the same class C. If the /27 comes from
another area, then an area range from that area could
be done to summarize the /27 and /28 into a /24 into
area 0, and this /24 could then be redistributed.
I know I used a lot of slashes...
--- Sandro Ciffali <sandyccie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Devender,
> I agree with you completly on this, This is the way
> i plan to distribute /28
> to /24 on asbr from ospf to rip or igrp, But i have
> heard through couple of
> guys that it is makred as modifying ospf database
> hence lost points, I
> seriously hope someone would tell us the correct way
> of doing this.
>
> Sandro
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Devender Singh"
> <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>
> To: "Mohamed Heeba" <MAHeeba@itqan.co.ae>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 7:02 PM
> Subject: RE: OSPF summary and redistribution
>
>
> > Hai Mohammad,
> > Sorry to come the subject a bit late.
> >
> > I agree this is Scary and I agree with what ever
> you said. What if this
> > situation
> > arises in the lab :-(((. I wish to discuss this
> bit futher.
> >
> > This my understanding:
> >
> > Normally summary-address used create a summary
> from type 5 LSA on ASBR
> (Say
> > rip to ospf ). But what happens when we use it to
> summarise the other way
> > around. When we redistribute ospf into say RIP, by
> rules it will get
> > redistributed into RIP, but if the mask on the
> outgoing RIP interface
> does
> > not match routes will not be progated into rip.
> The mask on the outgoing
> > interface does not have anything to do with basic
> process of
> redistribution.
> > Now if we redistribute RIP back into ospf without
> any route-map or
> > distribute-lists all this route will be inserted
> back into ospf but they
> > will not bother ospf because internal routes have
> preference over external
> > routes. Now the summary command ( our hack) does
> its job and pushes it
> back
> > to RIP with the mask we want also into ospf domain
> as external. Rest
> > everything is normal.
> >
> > Does this make sense to you.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Devender Singh
> > BE(Hons), CCNP
> > IP Solution Specialist
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mohamed Heeba [mailto:MAHeeba@itqan.co.ae]
> > Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2001 9:04
> > To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > Subject: OSPF summary and redistribution
> >
> >
> > guys ;
> > i have reached a conculation about the problem of
> the OSPF and
> summarization
> > /redistribution and wanted to share it with you
> who are interested .
> > i have revised Doyles chapter of redistribution
> ,there is an example of
> > redistributing RIP into IS-IS and at the end of
> this chapter ,(RIP is /24
> > and ISIS is /24 and /28 )
> > CLEARLY ,he NEVER use the command summary-address
> to summarize the ISIS
> > routes to the RIP and clearly also mentioned that
> ISIS /28 routes should
> be
> > summarized to RIP by using STATIC ROUTES !!!!.
> > so the point is the summary command should only be
> used to summarize
> > extrenal routes INTO ISIS or OSPF .but our problem
> is that we were trying
> to
> > go around this problem to avoid the use of static
> routes ,while in fact it
> > is an easy way to solve this problem.
> > going around the problem can may be done by a
> command like ip
> > default-network ,but this will require the major
> class network to be
> > different in both domains.
> > well...i guess in the real lab there should be way
> to avoid using the
> > summary address in opposite way and create more
> problems ....or they may
> > allow to use just single static route somewhere
> :))))))
> >
> >
> > hope someone can comment on this
> > Mohamed
> > **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 - 10:30:49 GMT-3