From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 21:35:53 GMT-3
It depends on the questions, what is allow to do, as long as we do according to
the given conditions, it should be ok. This is just my opinions. You are sugge
st that using eigrp with same as number with igrp and do address summary at eig
rp which is auto redistribute into igrp, right ?
> Parry Chua
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Katson PN Yeung [mailto:kyeung@hkcix.com]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:28 PM
To: Chua, Parry; Perminder Grewal; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Solie's P.791 confusion.((BIG HELP)
Hi Parry,
I do think this is the proper degree perference to treat with this kind of
problem... The only clue is, if the proctor like this piggy-back ospf
solution or not? I am thinking of doing this with EIGRP instead of
secondary OSPF. :-)
At 03:32 PM 5/3/2002, Chua, Parry wrote:
>Below are my prefer order of suggestions and may not be best :-
>
>1. Create a new ospf process ospf_2 at R3, redistribute the area 0 /29 to
>ospf_2, address summary into /24. At R3 IGRP, redistribute ospf_2.
>
>2. Create a new area in R3, put it loopback in this new area, do area 0
>range to /24.
>
>3. At R3, create a secondary ip address with /29 at s0.1, disable
>split-horizon, do filter to act as split-horizon.
>
>4. Create tunnel interface between R3/R4 with /29.
>
>1 and 2 does not add any thing.
>3 and 4 will allocate ip addresses.
>
> > Parry Chua
> >
> >
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Perminder Grewal [mailto:percy_gunner@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:17 PM
>To: kyeung@hkcix.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Solie's P.791 confusion.((BIG HELP)
>
>
>Can anyone help
>
>
>I tried this scenario in my lab yesterday the basic set up is the same as
>yours.
>
> > R4
> > |s0
> > |
> > --s0.1---| R1---|e0
> >|e0-R3< /
> > --s0.2---------<
> > \
> > R2---|e0
>
>
>1) the frame is a /29 area 0 (r3 r2 r1)
>2) R1 and R2 are ABR area 0 and area 1 (e0) /25
>3) R3 to R4 is a /24 igrp. ASBR (area 0 and IGRP)
>
>A) I can summarise the /25 to a /24 and the routers R1 and R2 have a null0
>in the route table and R4 gets the /24 from area 1.
>
>B) I've done the same on R3 summarise /29 to a /24 this does not put in a
>null0 in the R3 route table and in doing so does not advertise that prefix
>to R4.
>
>Solution??????
>
>I tried the the summ on R1 and R2 for area 0 it puts in the /24 nullO in
>there route table but R3 does not have it and in doing so does not advertise
>to R4.
>
>I got over the problem by including a static route /24 in R3 to null0 and
>then redistributed that static to in IGRP in doing so R4 gets the /24 for
>area.
>
>If anyone can shed any light, please let me know. I tried every combo last
>night and could only do this by the static method.
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Percy
>
>
>
>
> >From: Katson PN Yeung <kyeung@hkcix.com>
> >Reply-To: Katson PN Yeung <kyeung@hkcix.com>
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Solie's P.791 confusion.
> >Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:29:31 +0800
> >
> >Dear group,
> >
> >I have a question about Solie's book P.791.
> >
> >On the 2nd paragraph from the top, it saids:
> >"You cannot summarize Area 0 or the backbone area. All summaries are
> >flooded into area 0 and then are flooded out from that point. Therefore
> >Area 0 routes cannot be summarized"
> >
> >However, in the scenario such as below:
> >
> > R4
> > |s0
> > |
> > --s0.1---| R1---|e0
> >|e0-R3< /
> > --s0.2---------<
> > \
> > R2---|e0
> >
> >Where R3s0.2, R1s0, and R2s0 forming OSPF area 0 (/28 subnet)
> >- R1e0 area 1 (/24)
> >- R2e0 area 2 (/24)
> >- R3e0 being area 3 (/24 or whatever)
> >- R3 s0.1 and R4 running igrp (/24)
> >
> >Isn't it easy (and convenient) to create a /24 summary route by "area 0
> >range x.x.x.x 255.255.255.0" at R3, and then get it redistributed to igrp?
> >I did they before since the redis connected/summary ASBR method doesn't
> >work now.
> >
> >Solie P.791 makes me confused. Can someone clarifies if this "area 0
> >range" method is "okay to use" in the real lab environment?
> >
> >Or just like someone saids, tunnel method, sec interface method? or even
> >piggy-back OSPF
> >method are the more preferable way to make a /24 summary route?
> >
> >Thanks a lot.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:50 GMT-3