From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 21:19:57 GMT-3
This sounds pretty bulletproof. I actually thought the router woudn't
take the overlapping address until I read your post. I hope that by
"not allowing statics" they refere specifically going to config t and
putting in a route. I hope it does not mean things which are generated
by summarization.
Anthony Pace
On Sun, 09 Jun 2002 16:46:01 -0400, "Denise Donohue"
<fradendon@comcast.net> said:
> Remember that summarizing creates a static route to null0, which may
> not be
> allowed. Another way to do it is to give a secondary address to the
> loopback, in the same subnet as the primary address, but with a /24
> mask.
> The router will take it as long as that address doesn't overlap with
> any
> other on the router. Then the primary address won't make it into IGRP,
> but
> the secondary one will.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Anthony Pace
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:01 PM
> To: Tom Larus; Dennis Laganiere; 'Paul Connelly';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OSPF into IGRP and summarizing into FLSM
>
>
> 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 - 08:12:30 GMT-3