From: Peter Van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 12:25:49 GMT-3
Great, and when you add a new interface to the router that just so happens to f
it into that mask, it gets stuck in your OSPF process. Did you want it there?
Did you notice it got added? When your working with routers that a group of pe
ople touch, I find it's necessary to be as accurate as possible. In the lab, w
here fat fingers can cause stress and point loss, and your not going to configu
re a mess of DS1's on a channelized DS3, why not be precise?
How this has anything to do with redistribution into other protocols I'm lost o
n beyond IOS specific bugs and Rodgers has alluded to.
Pete
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 5/28/2001 at 4:04 PM Walter Chen wrote:
>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
n
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:56 GMT-3