From: Kevin Gentner (kgentner@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 19:08:44 GMT-3
This may help explain some of the problems that you are having:
http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/Bugtool/onebug.pl?bugid=CSCdm75819
Kevin Gentner
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Jim Graves
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:50 PM
To: Jeff K.; Brian Hescock
Cc: Mike Hess; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: 0.0.0.0 wildcard bits and redistribution
That's all I changed -- I put 172.20.50.0/24 on all the interfaces on that
VLAN, removed 137.20.0.0 from the EIGRP configurations, and added
172.20.0.0. I think I did a "clear ip rout *" on R5 and R6, and may have
rebooted, too.
If we're getting different results, that's interesting. What IOS version
are you using?
At 12:24 PM 5/29/2001 -0500, Jeff K. wrote:
>Yeah, I removed 137.20.0.0 and added the 172.20.0.0 net in the eigrp
>process.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jim Graves" <jtg@lucent.com>
>To: "Jeff K." <jeffbk@austin.rr.com>; "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>
>Cc: "Mike Hess" <mahess@home.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:20 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.0.0.0 wildcard bits and redistribution
>
>
> > 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
**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