From: Blanco Lam (b@gclamb.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 11:59:02 GMT-3
I think it's safe to remove the null route.
Without the default route, when routerb receives anything that's not in its
routing table, it should just drop it.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 03:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Chris Hugo <chrishugo@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Null Routes- And when it's safe to remove
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>I have a quick question that somebody can probably clarify in a heartbeat.
>
>Let's say you have two routers:
>
>routera------routerb
>
>routerb has the following routes in it's routing table:
>
>192.168.100.0/24
>
>192.168.200.0/24
>
>192.168.300.0/24
>
>Now on routerb I want to create A summary route using any IGP routing
protocol.
>
>The summary route is:
>
>192.168.0.0/16
>
>By default a routing protocol will summarize that route and propagate the
summarized route.
>
>Now what also happens is a null route is also from that specific routing
protocol into the router that originated the route. Of course this makes cent$
to avoid a routing loop.
>
>Now if routerb has a default route to router and routerb happens to lose ONE
route to 192.168.1.0 a routing loop will easily form without a null route on
routerb to 192.168.0.0.
>
>OK, now let's eliminate the default route on routerb but the summary route is
still propagated from routerb. Is it totally safe to say I can remove the
summary route without creating Possible routing loop if one route happens to
fail. I know how to remove this route that is not my concern.
>
>I want to know if it is safe to remove this null route in this condition....
>
>Thank U..
>
>chris hugo
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:46 GMT-3