From: Lupi, Guy (Guy.Lupi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 16:36:01 GMT-3
Sounds like a good motto, and I imagine if the solution is undocumented and
requires additional unspecified interface creation they wouldn't ask you to
do it, since it would require IP addressing and that is supposed to be done
for you already. On the other hand, that tunnel thing is pretty cool. Do
they give cool points on the lab? :)
I also realized that I never responded to EA Louie on his suggestion to put
in 4 area range commands, it didn't work for me, but thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brown
To: 'Chris Larson'; EA Louie; Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: 12/16/2001 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
The summary-address command is technically for summarization INTO OSPF.
The
inverse of summarization from OSPF into another routing protocol is an
undocumented anomaly that I can only make work on an inconsistent basis.
Therefore, the removal of the behavior in recent IOS releases doesn't
require a mention in the caveats if Cisco never intended it to be used
in
this manner.
I personally don't believe Cisco would expect you to use
undocumented/temperamental solutions to solve a problem in the lab. The
lab
is for logical solutions that identify your understanding of the
protocols
and not just your ability to configure routers with Cisco commands. If
you
don't understand how the protocols work you will get burned.
I would concentrate on the known, documented, and expected solutions to
the
redistribution problem such as default-network specification, ABR
area-range
summarization, or default network injection for the various protocols.
This is in no way a slam to John N., but I doubt Cisco would expect you
to
use tunnels to solve this redistribution problem. The value from his
experiments is the intimate knowledge of the protocols he as gained
through
his tests.
Be the packet, think like a router, and pass the lab. I think this might
my
new motto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Larson [mailto:clarson52@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 11:54 AM
To: EA Louie; Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
I have seen posts saying that summary-address does not work in 12.1 or
12.2?
I have 12.0 still and am using it for my studies until I can upgrade. I
am
wondering about this summary-address thing. I have read the caveats and
do
not see it mentioned so I feel that it has to work or Cisco would have
surely mentioned it but keep seeing posts that say otherwise.
Can you shed some light on this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "EA Louie" <elouie@yahoo.com>
To: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> did you try breaking the /22 into 4 area ranges? It's messy, but I'm
> betting it would work
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
> To: "'EA Louie '" <elouie@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:10 PM
> Subject: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
>
>
> > This appears to be a solution designed for when the OSPF subnet is
> smaller,
> > such as getting a /28 from OSPF to a /24 in IGRP, and they are not
> > part
of
> > the same classful network. This works no problem for me using
> > either
the
> > summary-address or area range command, thanks for the link. I am
> > trying to put a route of 147.1.77.0/24, which is a subset of the
> > 147.1.76.0/22 that is actually on the interface. It might help if I
give
> a
> > more detailed explanation.
> > I have a frame cloud, each interface on the frame cloud is
147.1.77.x/22,
> > these are in OSPF. I have an IGRP router connected to one of the
> > OSPF routers, it's interface IP is 147.1.5.1/24. So, the OSPF
> > router will
not
> > send 147.1.76.0/22 down to the IGRP neighbor because the subnet mask
> > is larger than that on the IGRP interface and they are part of the
> > same
major
> > network. I tried making the ospf router an ABR and using area
> > range,
> still
> > doesn't work, I have tried it using 147.1.77.0/24, and
> > 147.1.64.0/19, neither of them get advertised to the IGRP router.
> > Anyone know of a way
> to
> > get these routes in if they are part of the same major network?
> > This
> would
> > break one of the rules of IGRP, so I am wondering if it can be done,
this
> is
> > from a fatkid.com lab that gives the solution as the summary-address
> > command, which doesn't work in recent IOS. Thanks.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: EA Louie
> > To: Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Sent: 12/13/2001 8:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> >
> > Steve Feldberg gave us an elegant solution using 'area range' and
> > the only catch was the introduction of an additional area (making
> > the ASBR an ABR as
> > well). The summary-address command works okay in 12.0, but not in
12.1,
> > and
> > apparently, not in 12.2 either.
> >
> > here's the link
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200112/msg00148.html
> > (watch the URL wrap)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:14 PM
> > Subject: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> >
> >
> > > Ok, before I start I have searched the archives and found 2
> > > solutions,
> > one
> > > works in my lab and one does not. Here is the setup, one router
> > running
> > > OSPF and IGRP, it is an ASBR. One router running IGRP only. One
> > > of
> > the
> > > interfaces on the ASBR is in 147.1.76.0/22, the interface
> > > connected to
> > the
> > > IGRP router is in 147.1.5.0/24. Now I know that because they are
> > > part
> > of
> > > the same classful network and the subnets are not the same the
> > > OSPF
> > router
> > > will not advertise the 147.1.76.0/22 network. I found 2 solutions
> > > to
> > this,
> > > a "summary-address 147.1.77.0 255.255.255.0" in the OSPF config
> > > which
> > does
> > > not seem to work for me, and the other solution is a route map on
> > > the
> > IGRP
> > > only router specifying the next hop address for the networks that
> > > I am trying to reach. While the route map works, it does not put
> > > the
> > routes in
> > > the routing table on the IGRP router. I have heard that on some
> > > IOS versions the summary address command does not work for
> > > redistribution,
> > I
> > am
> > > running 12.2(1b) on both routers. Sorry to open this can of worms
> > again,
> > > any help is, as always, appreciated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:17 GMT-3