From: EA Louie (elouie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 22:47:33 GMT-3
> The area range command is for intra area summarization. The
summary-address
should be INTER (between) area summarization... not INTRA (within an) area
summarization. The way to remember is that all LSAs within an area must
match.
> command is for summarization from another protocol into the OSPF process.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Popovich [mailto:m.popovich@home.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 2:10 PM
> To: Lupi, Guy; 'Jim Brown '; ''Chris Larson' '; 'EA Louie ';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
>
>
> 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 - 10:56:18 GMT-3