From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 21:34:22 GMT-3
I saw this thread and was wondering if anyone can clarify this. If we
indicate that subnets will participate in EIGRP by using a specific
network statement, does this mean that other subnets of the same major
classfull network will not be advertised via EIGRP or does it mean that
their wire will just not send/recieve updates?
Does it obsolete the PASSIVE-INTERFACE in EIGRP?
Anthony Pace
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 03:29:03 -0400 , "Ouellette, Tim"
<tim.ouellette@eds.com> said:
> Okay, I see your point as well. I guess what I meant is that it's
> "Class C"
> like or that the associated mask would be what one would use had a
> regular
> old class C network. Ahh heck, it's late and I don't really know what I
> meant. Sounded good at the time though.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@ldd.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 11:26 PM
> To: 'Ouellette, Tim'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: eigrp network statements
>
>
> Well, I understand your point.
>
> Small correction.
>
> "172.16.10.0 0.0.0.255" is a class C statement"
>
> There is no class C address's in the 172.16.10.0 range. This is
> example
> of a /24 subnet of a 172.16.0.0 major network. The term 'Class C' only
> can be used for classful networks, i.e. the major networks that are
> /24.
>
> This matter was pointed out to me a while ago, by one of our senior
> engineers. I had to think about it, but I agree with him. Class C is
> a
> network term that can not be used in a VLSM subnetted network. Another
> example would be that 192.0.0.0/8 is not a 'Class A' network' even if
> you could supernet it that way.
>
> No big deal, just a small point.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Ouellette, Tim
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:23 PM
> To: 'Ping Pong'
> Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: RE: eigrp network statements
>
> The "network 172.16.0.0" is a class B statement and your "network
> 172.16.10.0 0.0.0.255" is a class C statement. Not sure I'm making my
> point. I would think you'd use the latter of the two if you wanted to
> be
> more specific of what ports you wanted to put into the eigrp process.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ping Pong [mailto:booby_trap2001@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 5:42 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: eigrp network statements
>
>
> Hello..
>
> Since 12.0, we can define eigrp network statements
> classlessly.
> For ex.
> router eigrp 1000
> network 172.16.10.0 0.0.0.255
>
> what is the difference between the above and this?
> router eigrp 1000
> network 172.16.0.0
>
> and which is the preferred method in the lab?.
>
> thanks.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:29 GMT-3