From: Nigel Taylor (nigel_taylor@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 18:41:42 GMT-3
Paul,
The RIP routers will know of the network through the summary route
as I stated. The key here is that once
the packet bound to the destination the ASBR performing redistribution will
route the packet based on the classful
perfix match. The important note here is that the summary route(let's say we
used x.x.x.x/24, instead of the /19) will
be learned through the RIP domain just fine.
I don't have the entire picture of what you're trying to accomplish but this
seems like it should work.
Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
To: "Nigel Taylor" <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Route redistribution
> Thanks, this is really interesting suggustion, but it
> won't work in my scenario. How other routers in rip
> domain will know about /19 network ?(except for
> defalult
> route)
> Paul
> --- Nigel Taylor <nigel_taylor@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul,
> > In the past I had a scanerio where this was
> > the problem, I came up
> > with the use of the "no ip classless" command.
> > The key here is that in summarizing the /19 to a
> > longer mask. This with the
> > "no ip classless" should allow for packets to
> > be routed through the network, however when arriving
> > on the locally sourced
> > router, the packet should remain classfull
> > and be routed to the correct segment versus using
> > the summary route. Of
> > course there are only few circumstances where
> > this configuration will make sense, a lab enviroment
> > is major one of them
> > that comes to mind.
> >
> > Here's a pretty good link. I know a couple of years
> > ago there was a pretty
> > active on the list about using the "ip classless"
> > command. Check there as well if interested.
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/21.html
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Nigel
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Emmanuel Oppong" <e-oppong@attbi.com>
> > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 2:58 PM
> > Subject: RE: Route redistribution
> >
> >
> > > That would be fine.But we are only running rip
> > ver1.
> > > We all know how to summerize networks with address
> > /25
> > > /26 and so on in order to redistriburte them to
> > > classfull protocols. But how we do that for nets
> > /19
> > > /20 when when classfull protocol interface has
> > biger
> > > mask.
> > > paul
> > > --- Emmanuel Oppong <e-oppong@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > For OSPF-RIP why don't you use "ip rip send
> > version
> > > > 2 on OSRF router
> > > > interface, and "ip rip receive version 2" on
> > RIP
> > > > router interface?
> > > > For OSPF-IGRP why don't you use "ip
> > > > default-information originate" or " ip
> > > > default-network ..."?
> > > >
> > > > E
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > > > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > > Paul
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 1:09 AM
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Route redistribution
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi group,
> > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but after
> > intensive
> > > > testing it seems to me there is no way to
> > > > redistribute
> > > > ospf route let's say 140.10.0.0/22 into rip or
> > igrp
> > > > domain over /24 interface of the same majore
> > net(
> > > > 140.10.1.0/24).Secondary addressing doesn't work
> > in
> > > > this case. Tunneling might work but is awkward.
> > > > Only default route seems to be solution.(which
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > allowed in the lab of course).
> > > > I'm taking lab soon, and I'd appreciate any
> > ideas
> > > > Thank you .
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:10 GMT-3