From: Gregg Malcolm (greggm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 19:23:57 GMT-3
Yea, That would work too. I'm pretty sure however, that if Null 0 routes
are excluded from use, the default-network statement would also be. I could
be wrong but in this case I'd definitely go to the proctor and list all the
tools to solve the problem and ask which one is desired.
Another similar tool to tunnels would be the use of secondary addresses with
the correct mask for IGRP. I've found them to be kinda flaky in this
situation and avoid using them to solve these types of problems.
Gregg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
To: "'Gregg Malcolm'" <greggm@sbcglobal.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: Summary to Null 0 Question
> Since the requirement is only that the igrp router be able to reach the
> backbone and does not necessarily have to have an exact route to it, what
> about adding a loopback with 192.168.1.1 on r2, "ip default-network
> 192.168.1.0" on r2, and put 192.168.1.0 into igrp on r2. That should meet
> the requirement, as long as it doesn't state that the explicit route to
the
> backbone has to be on r1.
>
> ~-----Original Message-----
> ~From: Gregg Malcolm [mailto:greggm@sbcglobal.net]
> ~Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:46 PM
> ~To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> ~Subject: Re: Summary to Null 0 Question
> ~
> ~
> ~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