From: ying chang (ying_c@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 23:02:10 GMT-3
That's pretty much what I have seen so far. The only way I could get it into
igrp as /24 is use tunnel interface instead of secondary address.
>From: Venkata Agoram <vsubrama@cisco.com>
>Reply-To: Venkata Agoram <vsubrama@cisco.com>
>To: Dan <dp595@optonline.net>
>CC: ying chang <ying_c@hotmail.com>, "CCIELAB (E-mail)"
><CCIELAB@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: secondary address no longer works?
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:02:46 -0700
>
>I have tried the secondary address with different mask as the setup
>primary address 10.1.130.1/30
>secondary address 10.1.135.1/24
>and configured unicast routing and now I can pass /24 routes to IGRP domain
>but all the /24 ospf routes takes the primary address
>mask and shows as /30 in igrp domain
>
>ospf R3--------------------------------R5 igrp
> igrp
>
>
>interface Serial0/0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay
>!
>interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point
> ip address 10.1.135.2 255.255.255.0 secondary
> ip address 10.1.130.2 255.255.255.252
> frame-relay interface-dlci 503
>!
>interface FastEthernet0/1
> no ip address
> shutdown
> duplex auto
> speed auto
>!
>router igrp 2001
> redistribute connected
> network 9.0.0.0
> network 10.0.0.0
> network 11.0.0.0
> neighbor 10.1.135.1
>
>
>Gateway of last resort is not set
>
> 192.168.250.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>C 192.168.250.3 is directly connected, Loopback0
> 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 2 masks
>I 10.1.6.0/30 [100/8576] via 10.1.135.1, 00:00:15, Serial0/0.1
>C 10.1.18.0/30 is directly connected, Loopback3
>C 10.1.17.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback2
>C 10.1.16.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback1
>I 10.1.80.0/30 [100/8576] via 10.1.135.1, 00:00:15, Serial0/0.1
>C 10.1.130.0/30 is directly connected, Serial0/0.1
>I 10.1.128.0/30 [100/10476] via 10.1.135.1, 00:00:16, Serial0/0.1
>I 10.1.135.0/30 [100/10476] via 10.1.135.1, 00:00:16, Serial0/0.1
>C 10.1.135.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0.1
>R5#
>
>venkat
>
>
>
>At 02:08 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, Dan wrote:
>>Let me clarify. I should have said secondary networks don't support
>>broadcast/multicast "routing" on them. This is because routing updates
>>are
>>always sourced with the primary ip address. If you have the following:
>>
>>interface Serial0
>>ip address 1.1.1.1/24
>>ip address 2.2.2.2/24 secondary
>>
>>All [broadcast/multicast] routing advertisements sent out on that
>>interface
>>will be sourced with 1.1.1.1 if my memory serves correctly, therefore any
>>receiving routers not on the 1.1.1.0/24 network will reject those routing
>>updates. It doesn't matter if you have specified a "network" statement
>>for
>>both networks under your routing process. All updates are sourced with
>>1.1.1.1. Configuring unicast routing avoids this pitfall.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Secondary networks do not support multicast/broadcast traffic last time
>>I
>> > checked, therefore you'll need to use a workaround here.
>> > Another method instead of the tunnel is to configure unicast
>>"neighbors"
>>for
>> > your routing protocol.
>> >
>> > Dan Pontrelli
>> > CCIE# 8040
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Am I the only person have troubles with the secondary address? I have
>> > > the following (everything is in 172.16.x.x/16):
>> > >
>> > > 24.1/24----\
>> > > R2--2.2/24-ospf-2.1/24--R6--1.1/28-igrp-1.2/28--R3--3.1/28
>> > > 28.1/28----/
>> > >
>> > > When I add the 2nd address 36.1/24 and 36.2/24 on r6 and r3, 24.1/24
>>is
>> > > not seen in 'debug ip igrp trans'. When I switched the primary with
>> > > the secondary addresses, i.e. /28 is secondary address and /24
>> > > is primary address, only /24 routes can be seen in the debug. It
>>looks
>> > > like routes can only be distributed via primary interface.
>> > >
>> > > The problem was fixed by using the tunnel interface. But I'm
>>wondering
>> > > if you have seen this problems. I've checked the archives and someone
>> > > said the secondary addresses would stop working if you reboot the
>> > > router. I've used it in the past without any problems, but wondering
>> > > if this is a bad choice.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Chang
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:11 GMT-3