From: Brian Lodwick (xpranax@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Oct 12 2001 - 21:00:27 GMT-3
I have finally found one reason for not using the individual host (0.0.0.0)
for the network command.
I've gotta go home, but check out this issue with the "OSPF Forwarding
Address" if you use the 0.0.0.0 network command on the ASBR external
interface.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/104/10.html
>>>Brian
>From: "Bryan Osoro" <bosoro@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "Bryan Osoro" <bosoro@hotmail.com>
>To: "'Ben-Shalom, Omer'" <omer.ben-shalom@intel.com>,
><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: OSPF interface - a non related question
>Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:25:49 -0600
>
>My personal habit is to use the individual host, so I can assure that no
>other interfaces are grabbed and put into the process. I have yet to
>see actual advantages for any either way that are backed with
>documentation.
>
>Bryan
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>Ben-Shalom, Omer
>Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:52 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: OSPF interface - a non related question
>
>regarding the below:
>
> >>network 10.10.10.1 0.0.0.0 area 1, network 10.10.10.1 0.0.0.63 area 1,
>or
> >>network 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 area 1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>That should fix you right up
> >>
> >>
>
>I am pretty certain all of the above will, indeed work fine as the idea
>is
>to get the interface considered in the OSPF domain.
>
>Is one of the forms (the interface address specifically, the subnet it
>belongs to or a supernet/classful net) considered a better form/just
>better
>for any reason or is using any of them just as good.
>
>Personally I find using the subnet the most intuitive as it is a
>'network'
>statement so using a host there seems awkward and the classful one can
>match
>interfaces I don't want included in the same area, but I see not real
>reason
>why this would be better.
>
>Omer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:18 GMT-3