From: ying chang (ying_c@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 12:23:48 GMT-3
Hi Harold,
That's a creative approach! But is this still meet the requirement the
question asked? Sorry don't have the book with me at this time. If it's OK,
I think we probably should just summarize them at R5 the way you did it and
get the same stability as 172.16.x.x/16 network.
I think the problem with intermittently showing up in the IGRP table problem
probably is caused by the route feedback at R3. 172.16.x.x/16 did not have
problem because it's not redisdistributed from OSPF as 150.x network. Put a
filter or adjust admin distance at R3 probably would take care of it. To
verify if this is the case, change igrp time to 10 30 30 60 and use "debug
ip igrp tran" to see what's going on.
Thanks,
Chang
>From: "Logan, Harold" <loganh@mcc.cc.fl.us>
>To: "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: Skynet 151.100.0.0/15 to IGRP/24?
>Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 10:27:49 -0400
>
>My approach to it was to do summary-addresses on R2 for 151.100.0.0/16 and
>151.101.0.0/16. That got them to show up in R3's routing table, but they
>only got advertised into IGRP intermittently. What was perplexing was that
>the 172.16 network from R5 got injected into IGPR with no problem.
>
>Anyone else get that one to work?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ying chang [mailto:ying_c@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sun 4/7/2002 1:52 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc:
> Subject: Skynet 151.100.0.0/15 to IGRP/24?
>
>
>
> Someone mentioned in the archive that "ip default-network" is the answe
r
>for
> IGRP/24 to reach EIGRP summarized route 151.100.0.0/15 in R5. Solie's
> solution key doesn't have the answer for this one.
>
> Is "ip default-network" the only way to solve this problem? Or should I
> break it up to 151.100.0.0/16 and 151.101.0.0/16 in R3?
>
> Thanks,
> Chang
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:59 GMT-3