From: Michael Popovich (m.popovich@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2002 - 18:09:30 GMT-3
I was under the impression that summary-address was for summarization into
other protocols and area range was for summarization into OSPF.
Do I have this backwards?
MP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
To: "'Jim Brown '" <Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>; "''Chris Larson' '"
<clarson52@home.com>; "'EA Louie '" <elouie@yahoo.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 1:36 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> 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