From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 22:41:29 GMT-3
Hello Tony,
Your R8 has two interface with /25 and one interface /24, and you rung igrp he
re, right ?
The next hop router R6 also run igrp with /24 to R8, right ?
In this case, you can setup secondary ip address at R8 s0 wich gas a /24 subnet
, the ideal here is to send the two /25 as one /24 to next hop, setup secondary
ip address at s0 said 172.16.86.1/25,
or 172.16.86.129/25, you may has to disable sp at this interface and then do fi
ltering to act as sp is on. So you should able to send 172.16.80.0 from R8 to R
6 and appear as 172.16.80.0/24.
Try it out..
> Parry Chua
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: hong tony [mailto:aamercado31@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 5:58 AM
To: Lupi, Guy; ying chang; nigel_taylor@hotmail.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: FLSM has longer mask than VLSM Probl.
Hi all
The tunnel alone worked, no secondary..thanks for the
help:
Here is what I tried:
Tunnel only btwn r8/r6 using ip add for tunnel
source/destination --worked like a charm
tunnel only btwn r8/r6 using interface for tunnel
source and ip add for tunnel destination -- it look
like there was a split horizon issue
Tried secondary address with:
1. Ying's suggestion - no go
2. your -- no go
--- "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com> wrote:
> The tunnel just has to be in the same classful
> network with the same subnet
> mask, it doesn't have to match the third octet in
> your case. You could use
> 172.16.254.0/25 for the tunnel to get the /25's from
> r8 to r6, and you can
> put a secondary address of 172.16.100.254/24 on
> serial 1 of r6 to get
> 172.16.100.0/24 to r8. That should take care of
> both problems.
>
> ~-----Original Message-----
> ~From: hong tony [mailto:aamercado31@yahoo.com]
> ~Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 4:30 PM
> ~To: ying chang; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> ~Subject: Re: FLSM has longer mask than VLSM Probl.
> ~
> ~
> ~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