From: Nigel Taylor (nigel_taylor@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 17:27:27 GMT-3
Tony,
The question is "why exactly do you need the "172.16.80.0" route in
the r6 RIB? You should have the classfull "172.16.0.0" which should provide
connectivity(i.e ping, traceroute)to r8. What requirement/benifit would
this achieve. I would think the issue here is getting the
r6-r3(172.16.100.0/27) into the r8 RIB to achieve full connectivity. Now
getting this to happen would be interesting.. :->
Can you from r8 ping the s1 interface of r3? See Inline...
Nigel
>From: hong tony <aamercado31@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: hong tony <aamercado31@yahoo.com>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: FLSM has longer mask than VLSM Probl.
>Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>HI
>
>I search the archives and can't find an answer for
>this one.
>
>\lo0
>r8----r6-----r3
>/lo1
>
>r8/r6 is IGRP with r6 as the redistributing router for
>the OSPF on r6/r13
>
>r8 ip address:
>lo0 = 172.16.80.1/25
>lo1 = 172.16.80.129/25
>s0= 172.16.86.8/24
>
>r6 ip address:
>s0 = 172.16.86.6/24
>s1 = 172.16.100.6/27
>
>r3 ip address:
>s1 = 172.16.100.3/27
>
>My question is - How can I can the 172.16.80.0 network
>into r6 routing table?
>
>If I put "ip route 172.16.80.0 255.255.255.0 null0"
>the route would propagate to r6/r3. However, obviously
>I do not want to do statics...so here were my
>alternative attempts.
>
>1. default-network - Can't do it cuz of the classful
>nature of this command which would propagate a static
>route into r8.
>
>2. Summarizing - Nope cuz the IGRP (FLSM) has a longer
>mask than OSPF (VLSM)
NT: In a non-production enviroment you might consider disabling the "ip
classless and check out the effect on the longer FLSM you mentioned.
>
>3. secondary address - Because of the 172.16.80.x/25
>mask is using up all the subnetworks for 80.x, I don't
>have any other address to use for secondary
NT: the emphasis here would not be in using the x.x.80.x network but using
the same mask so that the interface will pass route info with the /25.
>
>4. tunnelling - same problem as #3
>
>5. policy routing - I can't see this as applicable
NT: I wouldn't rule that out. The issue here is all the connections are on
the 17.16.0.0 classfull boundary. OSPF won't have an issue with this but
IGRP will as you've noticed.
>
>Is this possible or am I stuck to the null 0 option.
>
>Thanks
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:15 GMT-3