From: Jason Gardiner (gardiner@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 24 2001 - 10:44:01 GMT-3
That's what I thought. Interesting that you brought this up, as I am
having on hell of a problem getting it to work. My scenario:
IGRP Segment uses a /28 from 172.17.20.0
OSPF network uses mostly /28s from the same class B block. However, it
also has a /29 and 2 /30s which, if summarized, would make a /28.
These routes are showing up in the ASBR as IA routes. The summary
command _APPEARS_ to work, but the summary address never appears in the
routing table. I thought it might be because OSPF would not summarize
interarea routes to an external protocol, but that doesn't make much
sense.
I also tried to use ip default-network, but couldn't get that working
right, either.
Any suggestions?
Robert Dubell wrote:
>
> That is the proper way to redistribute from a OSPF into IGRP. Using the
> summary-address command on the ASBR....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Oliver <stevie_oliver@hotmail.com>
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:01 AM
> Subject: VLSM and IGRP redistribution
>
> >How many ways can you accomplish VLSM into IGRP redistribution.
> >
> >I have a router running OSPF on one interface and IGRP on the other. It's
> >an ASBR. I have a class B address on both sides but with a /24 mask. The
> >OSPF side is all area 0 and from another router in that area some /26 and
> >/27 routes are being sent. When redistributing these routes into IGRP what
> >are the options.
> >
> >Every book I read says the ospf command
> >
> ># summary-address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
> >
> >is used when summarizing external routes into OSPF however this is the only
> >way I can get the routes accross to IGRP. I put the command
> >
> ># summary-address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.0
> >
> >on the ASBR for each of the /26 and /27 routes and they go over to the IGRP
> >router. A route to null 0 is created on the ASBR as expected but since
> this
> >is /24 the more specific route of /26 or /27 takes precenence.
> >
> >Is this the proper way to do this ? I got the problem from a well known
> >testing software page and they use the Area Range command which seems
> >irrelevant in this case and does not work anyway.
> >
> >Thanks, Stevie.
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:24 GMT-3