From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 21:01:13 GMT-3
Tom Larus said "Let's say you have loopback addresses on OSPF enabled
routers that you will need to summarize so that an IGRP /24 network
will be able to see them and reach them. You redistribute them into
OSPF, and use summary-address ip mask to summarize them right there on
the same router, which is by definition an ASBR because redistribution
is happening on it. Works like a charm."
In other words you are using IP SUMMARY under OSPF even though you want
to shoot the /24 into IGRP? Then, a /24 is created right there on that
router and puhed into the IGRP world? Is that correct?
I have been looking at this list for a definitive answer on this for a
while (not wanting to repost a question if it has allready been
answered) This seems like a solution. The quesion has been asked many
times and interpreted or missinterpreted differently in different posts
but essentially this is the problem as I see it: All of the protocoles
on the LABS we have all been doing have a mechanism for redistributing
and controlling summarization except IGRP. The LABS almost always give
you the ability to summarize almost all your networks via these other
mechanisms long before they reach the OSPF/IGRP redistribution point
with the exeption of a loopback or directly connected network on that
router which does not conform to the IGRP FLSM. It has been suggested
that a "ip default-network" be shot into IGRP and this works but it is
questionable as to weather this constitutes an ILLEGAL STATIC ROUTE.
The Solie labs pose this scenario but the soltions do not address it.
Are there any other tools that can be used?
Anthony Pace
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:35:53 -0400, "Tom Larus" <tlarus@novacoxmail.com>
said:
> I have never taken the lab, so I could not speak to that aspect of the
> question, but I did learn something recently I thought was neat, but
> that
> many others here have probably known for years.
>
> Let's say you have loopback addresses on OSPF enabled routers that you
> will
> need to summarize so that an IGRP /24 network will be able to see them
> and
> reach them. You redistribute them into OSPF, and use summary-address
> ip
> mask to summarize them right there on the same router, which is by
> definition an ASBR because redistribution is happening on it. Works
> like a
> charm.
>
> Okay, it's old hat for a lot of you old hands, but I still think it is
> pretty neat.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Laganiere" <dennisl@advancedbionics.com>
> To: "'Paul Connelly'" <chewy7700@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:40 PM
> Subject: RE: Connected routes vs network statement
>
>
> > Some routing protocols will interpret the two differently. EIGRP, or
> > instance, will see the redistributed route as external, which has a much
> > higher AD.
> >
> > --- Dennis
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Connelly [mailto:chewy7700@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:03 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Connected routes vs network statement
> >
> > Is there a preference in the lab when to use "redistribute connected" vs.
> > network statements? I know the redistribute connected will not turn on the
> > routing protocol on the interface but you can easily turn it off with
> > passive-interface. Just want to check if the exam wants you to do it a
> > certain way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:29 GMT-3