From: hong tony (aamercado31@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 17:30:10 GMT-3
Ying
That is one of my dilemnas. I want to stick with the
80.x subnetwork with the /25 mask and I am already
using 80.1 and 80.129 so there is no more address to
use for secondary or tunnels.
--- ying chang <ying_c@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The netmask in flsm has to be the same (see Doyle I
> pg 205), i.e. you either
> have to use all /24 or all /25 in your igrp domain.
> If you don't want to
> change that, you can add a secondary address or
> tunnel with /25 netmask to
> bring the network to ospf. Make sure you either turn
> off split-horizon or
> use unicast instead of broadcast if you decide to
> use the secondary address.
> Which domain has a longer netmask is non-issue here.
>
>
> >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)
> >
> >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
> >
> >4. tunnelling - same problem as #3
> >
> >5. policy routing - I can't see this as applicable
> >
> >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