From: Jim Graves (jtg@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 14:20:13 GMT-3
Did you remember to remove 137.20.0.0 from the EIGRP configuration? That's
what I did at first, before noticing that the route I was looking for was
showing up as an internal route.
At 11:09 AM 5/29/2001 -0500, Jeff K. wrote:
>I changed the EIGRP LAN (ccbootcamp lab 3) to the 172.20.50.0/24 addresses
>and still didn't have a problem with the 0.0.0.0 area mask. All my routes
>still appeared everywhere as they should have. Can you let me know
>specifically what you changed on which routers so I can be sure I did
>exactly what you did? I am curious about this now. I guess this is what I
>get for using 'reasoning' before banging keys on the keyboard. ;-)
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>-Jeff
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Graves" <jtg@lucent.com>
>To: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>; "Jeff K." <jeffbk@austin.rr.com>
>Cc: "Mike Hess" <mahess@home.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:22 AM
>Subject: Re: 0.0.0.0 wildcard bits and redistribution
>
>
> > I can't think of any reason a 0.0.0.0 wildcard mask should make a
> > difference either -- but it does. Give it a try. Last night, I set up
>the
> > situation Walter talks about, and to my shock and horror he was right. I
> > used a 0.0.0.0 wildcard mask, and the network didn't show up. When I
> > changed the network statement to use a 0.0.0.255 wildcard mask, the
>network
> > showed up in EIGRP. Huh.
> >
> > The same thing happens in bootcamp lab 3 if you replace the EIGRP LAN
> > network with some other network outside 137.20.0.0/16. I tried it with
> > both 192.168.50.0/24 and 172.20.50.0/24 (to rule out any kind of classful
> > silliness). Again, when I used 0.0.0.0, the connected network didn't show
> > up. With 0.0.0.255, it did. The same thing happened when I tried RIP v2
> > or a second OSPF process instead of EIGRP.
> >
> > Why? Beats the heck out of me. I tested this using IOS versions
>12.0(11),
> > 12.0(15), and 12.0(7)T. I don't know if it's a bug of a feature, but it
> > sure is weird.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > At 10:35 PM 5/28/2001 -0400, Brian Hescock wrote:
> > >I can't think of any way using a 0.0.0.0 wildcard bits would affect
> > >redistribution, unless it's a bug. All the ospf network command does is
> > >turn on ospf on
> > >the interface(s) covered by the network statement, that's all it does.
>It
> > >has zero effect on the network mask being advertised and no effect on
> > >redistribution. To everyone that said use a 0.0.0.0 mask (wildcard bits
> > >actually), thumbs up, it's the preferred method unless you have a lot of
> > >interfaces you need to turn
> > >ospf on. Not just for lab use but for production networks as well. Less
> > >chance for error and easier to troubleshoot.
> > >
> > >Brian
> > >
> > >On Mon, 28 May 2001, Jeff K. wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >**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 - 10:30:56 GMT-3