From: DAN DORTON (DHSTS68@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 16:19:39 GMT-3
Yes... If they specifically say no default routes.
These are the sort of points I was trying to make.
Default-information originate, ip default-network, redistribute static
& redistribute connected don't seem to fit into any of the guidelines
that I have seen in practice labs, although if you look at the answers
in some of them they use these.
Makes me wonder.
>>> "Kirby, Ron" <Ron.Kirby@getronics.com> 12/13/01 01:19PM >>>
Here's a Question... Suppose you had a network with various length
masks and assorted routing protocols, and many of the routes won't
come
into your IGRP area for obvious reasons. If you add a default network
statement in IGRP to a classful route already in the routing table, it
flags that route as a default, right? So, if I ping a device on a
network not in the table, the router uses the classful route flagged
by
the default network statement, which forwards the packet to a router
where VLSM is working fine and I pick up a route actually matching
what
I pinged. Doesn't this make the route I flagged as a default an
actual
"default route", which is usually denied by a rule in the instructions
prohibiting default routes of any kind?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil [mailto:ciscostudent1@yahoo.com.br]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:28 PM
To: Larson, Chris (Contractor); 'DAN DORTON'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Opinions on static routes defined.
ip default-network won't generate a static route if you use a
classful
network in the command:
ip default-network 172.16.0.0 won't generate a static route.
ip default-network 172.16.1.0 will generate a static route.
"Larson, Chris (Contractor)" <Chris.Larson@ed.gov> escreveu: I have
seen this as well however IP Default-network does not always inject a
static route. I forget the exact circumstance that it will not
configure
a
static route and you can look on CCO. I believe that if the router
already
has a route to the network you use in the statement it will not
generate
a
static. If it doesn't have it in it's routing table then you can
advertise a
classfull loopback from another router and distribute into the
protocol.
Then configure the default-network on the router using that loopbsck
as
the
default network.
-----Original Message-----
From: DAN DORTON [mailto:DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:36 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Opinions on static routes defined.
In some of my practice labs I have of course seen the phrase do not
use
any statics to accomplish goals in this lab unless specifically
specified to do so.
In some of these instances the only way to make some of it work is to
either use the IP DEFAULT-NETWORK command ( Which of course creates a
static route, or use the DEFAULT-INFORMATION ORIGINATE ( Which is also
sort of a static injected type route.).
In my mind these commands both fall in the category of statics, but
then in some instance I see no other way. ( Also some of the instances
could be fixed with protocol redistribution, but this is explicitly
denied as well. )
I am just curious about how everyone else feels on this subject.
Please no breaking the NDA as this is not my intent of the question. I
am only wanting personal feeling responses.
Thanks,
Dan
---------------------------------
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo!
GeoCities. I facil e gratis!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:43 GMT-3