From: Kirby, Ron (Ron.Kirby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 15:02:13 GMT-3
The default network statement won't add a static route, but it will flag
the already existing route to the network specified by the default
network as the default, which becomes a defacto default route.
Ron Kirby
CCNP, MCSE, CNA
Network Engineer
Getronics, Houston ESC
713-852-5567 / 832-256-5403
ron.kirby@getronics.com
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and please destroy all copies of
this message and attachments. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Ingham [mailto:fningham@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:33 AM
To: Ademola Osindero
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OSPF-IGRP redistribution
Ademola: If you used a classful address for the ip default-network
there should not be a static entry in the route table. If you use other
than a classful address a static route is created and requires deletion
and a reboot to clear.
Using the summary-address as classful works as you proved. Routes
passed to IGRP are those at the IGRP mask, classful networks, and host
routes.
Cheers, Fred.
Ademola Osindero wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I am assuming a real-lab environment where the rule clearly states
that no
> static routes of any form can be configured. Using ip default-network
will
> definitely create static route entry in the routing table and I would
not
> want to use that except the proctor give's a nod to it.
> Area range would only create a summary that would appear on other ospf
> routers (sent in the LSU) but would not appear on the ASBR's routing
> table(needed for redistribution). Eventually I got summary-address
doing it
> but the lab sample was testing redistribution between different major
networks.
>
> I summarized on R2 using summary-address 172.17.0.0 and it did work.
>
> Thanks Ron.
>
> to nor preparing for my lab and At 08:43 AM 11/1/2001 -0500, Kirby,
Ron
> wrote:
> >If your only concern is being able to connect to (ping) the OSPF
interfaces
> >from the IGRP segments, then Ip default network would provide that
ability.
> >There are stipulations on how that should be configured, ie to a
classfull
> >network, etc...And possibly where to configure it, for example should
you
> >put it on the router doing redistribution or on the next IGRP
router... But
> >if you are trying to accomplish this with out any defaults routes in
your
> >topology, the "area X range" command under OSPF with the networks in
> >question summarized to the mask present on the IGRP interface works
as well.
> >
> >
> >Ron Kirby
> >CCNP, MCSE, CNA
> >Network Engineer
> >Getronics, Houston ESC
> >713-852-5567 / 832-256-5403
> >ron.kirby@getronics.com
> >
> >This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
> >privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me
> >immediately by replying to this message and please destroy all copies
of
> >this message and attachments. Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ademola Osindero [mailto:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:22 AM
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: OSPF-IGRP redistribution
> >
> >
> >I don't intend to start a long discussion on this topic but I need
your
> >help.
> >
> >
> >On router R2, I have this routes
> >
> > 171.68.0.0/26 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> >C 171.68.62.64 is directly connected, Serial1
> > 172.17.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 4 masks
> >C 172.17.59.128/30 is directly connected, Ethernet0
> >C 172.17.59.192/30 is directly connected, Virtual-TokenRing0
> >O IA 172.17.59.0/26 [110/65] via 172.17.59.33, 00:06:21, Serial0
> >C 172.17.59.32/28 is directly connected, Serial0
> >O 172.17.59.33/32 [110/64] via 172.17.59.33, 00:06:21, Serial0
> >O IA 172.17.59.65/32 [110/11] via 172.17.59.130, 00:06:21,
Ethernet0
> >
> >and I intend to redistribute OSPF routes into IGRP running only on
> >interface s1 (171.68.62.64).
> >
> >The major networks are not the same 172.17.0.0 and 171.68.0.0. Can
any one
> >suggest how to go about this redistribution without considering an
option
> >of static routes?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >Osindero Ademola
> >Schlumberger Network Solutions
> >Tel: 234 1 261 0446 Ext 3227
> >Fax 234 1 262 1034
> >email:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com
> Osindero Ademola
> Schlumberger Network Solutions
> Tel: 234 1 261 0446 Ext 3227
> Fax 234 1 262 1034
> email:osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:00 GMT-3