From: hong tony (aamercado31@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 18:21:34 GMT-3
I need the 80.x network for full connectivity as I
can ping from r8 to r3 (172.16.100.3) and I have the
100.x network in r8. But what I really want it to ping
from r3 to the outside (80.1 or 80.129) interface of
r8 which I cannot do.
r8#sh ip route
Gateway of last resort is not set
172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 5 subnets, 2
masks
C 172.16.80.128/25 is directly connected, Loopback1
C 172.16.8.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback10
I 172.16.100.0/24 [100/6476] via 172.16.86.6,
00:00:37, Serial0
C 172.16.86.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0
C 172.16.80.0/25 is directly connected, Loopback0
r8#sh proto
Global values:
Internet Protocol routing is enabled
IPX routing is enabled
Loopback0 is up, line protocol is up
Internet address is 172.16.80.1/25
Loopback1 is up, line protocol is up
Internet address is 172.16.80.129/25
Loopback10 is up, line protocol is up
Internet address is 172.16.8.1/24
IPX address is 800.0008.0008.0008
Serial0 is up, line protocol is up
Internet address is 172.16.86.8/24
r3#sh ip route
Gateway of last resort is not set
172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 5 subnets, 3
masks
O E2 172.16.8.0/24 [110/20] via 172.16.100.6,
00:03:21, Serial1
O E2 172.16.100.0/24 [110/20] via 172.16.100.6,
00:03:21, Serial1
C 172.16.100.0/27 is directly connected, Serial1
O 172.16.100.6/32 [110/64] via 172.16.100.6,
00:03:21, Serial1
O E2 172.16.86.0/24 [110/20] via 172.16.100.6,
00:03:21, Serial1
r6#sh ip route
Gateway of last resort is not set
172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 5 subnets, 3
masks
I 172.16.8.0/24 [100/6476] via 172.16.86.8, 00:00:01,
Serial0/0
O 172.16.100.0/24 is a summary, 00:05:16, Null0
C 172.16.100.0/27 is directly connected, Serial0/1.2
O 172.16.100.3/32 [110/781] via 172.16.100.3,
00:13:48, Serial0/1.2
C 172.16.86.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
--- Nigel Taylor <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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