From: fwells12 (fwells12@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 15:13:02 GMT-3
If you use a classless route in your command, it will indeed add a static
route to your config...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirby, Ron" <Ron.Kirby@getronics.com>
To: "Fred Ingham" <fningham@worldnet.att.net>; "Ademola Osindero"
<osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: OSPF-IGRP redistribution
> 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