From: Lupi, Guy (Guy.Lupi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:57:16 GMT-3
Give an example of the IP addresses. What is the IP address of the
interface participating in RIP, and what are the loopback addresses and
masks?
~-----Original Message-----
~From: Steven Weber [mailto:itweber@earthlink.net]
~Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:00 PM
~To: Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
~Subject: Re: RIP and Loopbacks in OSPF.......
~
~
~Guy,
~I'm not exactly sure what you are asking but OSPF and RIP are
~both using
~different masks. Doyle says that the way to fix this (739 #2)
~is by using a
~static route of the interface with the RIP mask on the
~redistributing router
~so that RIP thinks that these subnets are directly connected,
~but I can't
~seem to get that working
~
~Steve
~----- Original Message -----
~From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
~To: "'Steven Weber'" <itweber@earthlink.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
~Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:48 PM
~Subject: RE: RIP and Loopbacks in OSPF.......
~
~
~> They only need the mask native in RIP if they are in the
~same classful
~> network as the interface over which they are to be
~broadcast, is that what
~> you are seeing, that different masks in the same classful
~networks are
~seen
~> by RIP? If not this is the proper behavior, RIP can handle /32's.
~>
~> ~-----Original Message-----
~> ~From: Steven Weber [mailto:itweber@earthlink.net]
~> ~Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:55 PM
~> ~To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
~> ~Subject: RIP and Loopbacks in OSPF.......
~> ~
~> ~
~> ~I made an interesting observation, I wanted to know if
~other people are
~> ~experiencing the same thing, and the logic behind it. When
~> ~redistributing
~> ~between OPSF and RIP I noticed that the loopbacks in OSPF
~> ~don't need to be
~> ~summarized in order for RIP to see them. OSPF advertises a
~> ~loopback as a /32
~> ~by default and RIP has no problem with this. However, once I
~> ~add the ip ospf
~> ~network point-to-point command on the loopbacks thereby
~> ~changing them from a
~> ~/32 to their true mask, once again RIP cannot see them unless
~> ~there is some
~> ~sort of summarization or default route in place. I don't
~> ~understand why RIP
~> ~sees these routes as a /32, shouldn't they need the mask
~> ~native to RIP in
~> ~order to be seen in RIP ?
~> ~
~> ~Does anyone have insight on this one?
~> ~
~> ~Regards,
~> ~
~> ~Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:19 GMT-3