From: Gregg Malcolm (greggm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 18:45:41 GMT-3
Yea, That's pretty much what I expected :-(
Here's my problem scenario (and why I was asking the question)
R1 - Only routing protocol is IGRP with /24 masks on all int's. Connected
to R2
R2 - IGRP and OSPF. Area 0 with /27 mask on serial int not connected to R1.
Backbone router only.
Problem : Re-dist OSPF into IGRP so R1 can reach the backbone.
Solutions : Usual tricks like area range and summary address do not work
since R2 is not ABR nor ASBR.
#1 - Create static route to null 0 to summarize /27 into /24 so that route
will be sent via IGRP. Works like a charm.
#2 - Create a tunnel with network in same major net class as area 0 with /27
mask. Also works like a charm.
I'd just like to have more that one tool in the toolbox. The null is
obviously much easier too. Anyone else have any other solutions for this ?
Thanks, Gregg
Since
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAN DORTON" <DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <greggm@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Summary to Null 0 Question
I would consider it to be a static route to a destination.
Destination = Null0
In real life it is a a very usefull tool. In fact cisco recommeneds thats
how you solve FLSM to VLSM problems on TAC.
However, I would not count on being able to use that in the lab.
I would dig a bit deeper into your toolbox if I were you! ;)
>>> "Gregg Malcolm" <greggm@sbcglobal.net> 03/22/02 02:48PM >>>
Folks,
The answer to this is most likely "ask the proctor when you get to the lab"
but I thought I ask now to see if I need to work more on other solutions.
Do you think that an ip route to null 0 to summarize a route is considered a
static route? My thinking is that the intent of the exclusion of static
routes
on the lab is to prevent static routing to destinations only. Null 0 is a
very useful tool in my toolbox as it stands now.
By all means, please do not answer if you consider this question to be NDA.
Please no NDA flames either as I do take the NDA seriously.
TIA, Gregg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:18 GMT-3