From: Jeff K. (jeffbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 28 2001 - 23:11:27 GMT-3
You are exactly right with all the shortcuts. I've never considered using
aliases because I never use them day to day and know that it will wind up
slowing me down since I type pretty fast. I know that I can calculate a
wildcard mask easily and don't have a problem with it. Not my point,
though... I was merely asking for an explanation as to why using the
0.0.0.0 area mask would affect route redistribution, which is a question
that hasn't been answered. In my opinion, it makes good common sense as you
put it to use the 0.0.0.0 mask except when using a wildcard mask that will
allow you to group multiple interfaces into a single area (i.e., a single
statement versus multiple statements). Since I always use logic when
assigning my interface addressing schemes, the all 0 mask allows me to
double check everything quickly and easily - I know what interface has what
address and where it should be. Not that the wildcard mask makes that any
more difficult - just my personal preference. If a bug or other
'undocumented feature' requires me to use the exact mask, I will be fine as
well... Anyway, if you have an answer for my original question about why
the area mask affects route redistribution (what I originally responded to),
please respond. I am more curious than anything.
Thanks,
-Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hess" <mahess@home.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: how anal is the lab grading
> Why not just be smart and use a network statement and the right wildcard
> mask for every interface that you are putting into OSPF? It seems common
> sense to me not to try and get too pretty or cut too many corners and then
> get end up with a problem with 15 minutes left just because you were too
> lazy to be more specific in the first place.
>
> Some people advocate the use of too many shortcuts. I see a lot of people
> advocating shortcuts such as this, using a whold slew of alias commands,
> etc. Just learn the material and don't try to save seconds when it's the
> minutes and hours that really matter.
>
> Back to my original point, if you cannot at this point calculate a simple
> wildcard mask then you are going for the wrong certification. Perhaps it
is
> not the grading.... :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Jeff K.
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 5:27 PM
> To: Walter Chen; Peter Van Oene; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: how anal is the lab grading
>
>
> You lost me on the second paragraph. Why would using the 0.0.0.0
wild-card
> mask for interface area identification affect redistribution? This mask
> just allows you to use the interface's address. Obviously the subnet mask
> of your interfaces will affect redistribution, but I don't see how the
> 0.0.0.0 area mask will. You can definitely mess up your OSPF topology by
> using the wrong mask (i.e., interfaces in the wrong area, interfaces added
> to OSPF that weren't supposed to be). Let me know what your thoughts are
on
> this. Maybe I am forgetting something or am just misunderstanding
> something.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>
> To: "Peter Van Oene" <pvo@usermail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: how anal is the lab grading
>
>
> > IMHO, you can use 0.0.0.255 mask if you have other 1.1.1.x/29 networks
> onthe
> > same router and they also belong to the same OSPF area. However, if
these
> > networks should not be in OSPF or in the same area, you definitely
should
> > not use 0.0.0.255 mask. The absolutely sure and correct way is to use
> > 0.0.0.7 mask for 1.1.1.0/29 network.
> >
> > You can use 0.0.0.0 mask in cases if you do not need to redistribute
> > 1.1.1.0/29 into other routing protocols on this same router. However,
if,
> > say, your 192.168.1.0/24 belongs to EIGRP and you want to reistribute
> > between OSPF and EIGRP, the 1.1.1.0/29 network will NOT be passed into
> EIGRP
> > if you have used 0.0.0.0 mask.
> >
> > Walter
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Peter Van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 9:35 AM
> > Subject: Re: how anal is the lab grading
> >
> >
> > > Personally, I'd not use 0.0.0.255 in any case, lab or otherwise. The
> full
> > 0's mask is the safe and accurate way to add interfaces to the OSPF
> process
> > and unless you need to add 20 odd interfaces, I'd suggest you use it.
As
> > far as the lab goes, I can attest that lab grading is fair. You
shouldn't
> > worry about trivial semantics. If your prepared, you'll likely have a
> good
> > idea when you are using an illegal shortcut.
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > >
> > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
> > >
> > > On 5/28/2001 at 7:48 AM Don Dettmore wrote:
> > >
> > > >Question - How nit-picky are the graders of the lab? F0r example,
> > > >something
> > > >occurred to me when I was working in the lab:
> > > >
> > > >192.168.1.0 /24 ------ R1 ----- 1.1.1.0 /29
> > > >
> > > >When configuring R1 for OSPF, would the following be acceptable:
> > > >
> > > >network 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0.0.0.0
> > > >
> > > >Or would that be considered wrong because of the 'wrong' (or I should
> > say -
> > > >not specific enough) wildcard mask.
> > > >
> > > >Just wondering how anal I must train myself to be.
> > > >
> > > >Don Dettmore
> > > >**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 - 10:30:55 GMT-3