From: Bashir Sulaiman (bashir.sulaiman@netwise.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 10:04:13 GMT-3
Hedi,
RIP is a class-full routing protocol. The network 192.x.x.x is a class c
network, which means that it should have a /24. RIP does not understand the
concept of sub- or super-netting. You have effectively done the latter with
the 192.x.x.x/16 address. R1 will receive the route but dump it as it does
not have an interface in the network with 192.x.x.x/16. You will therefore
not see the route in R1.
I hope this helps.
Bashir
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Hedi Abdelkafi
Sent: 04 November 2002 09:12
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: FLSM to VLSM redistribution problem
Hi,
Can someone give me a good explanation to me problem !
I don't mind if it can work or not !
I would like to know WHY !!
Juste answer the following question, please :
why the network 192.190.0.0/16 is NOT redistributed into RIP ?
Is it because 192.190.0.0/16 is not valid network to RIP's point of view ?
Normally it should be /24...
Thanks for your help.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay [mailto:ccienxtyear@hotmail.com]
Sent: samedi 2 novembre 2002 1:23
To: Hedi Abdelkafi; GroupStudy (E-mail)
Subject: Re: FLSM to VLSM redistribution problem
you got it. summarize it as 192.190.100.0/24 and it should show up in R1.
-Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hedi Abdelkafi" <Hedi.Abdelk@simac.lu>
To: "GroupStudy (E-mail)" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:23 AM
Subject: FLSM to VLSM redistribution problem
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with redistribution from OSPF into RIP.
> Here's the topology
>
> R1---RIP---R2---OSPF AREA0---R3---OSPF AREA 10
>
> Network between R1 and R2 : 133.7.23.0/24
> Network between R2 and R3 : 133.7.147.0/24
>
> On R3, the following loopback interfaces are configured (these loopback
are redistributed into the OSPF process) :
> loop 1 : 160.100.100.1/24
> loop 2 : 160.100.128.1/24
> loop 3 : 192.190.100.1/24
> loop 4 : 192.190.101.1/24
> loop 5 : 192.190.102.1/24
>
> I would like that loop 1 and 2 appears as a single route.
> The same for loopback 3,4 and 5.
>
> On R3, I use the following command to create the summary route
> summary-address 192.190.0.0 255.255.0.0
> summary-address 160.100.0.0 255.255.0.0
>
> These summary appears, as expected, on R2.
> Now, I redistribute OSPF into RIP on R2.
>
> On R1, I can only see the 160.100.0.0/16 route !
> Why I cannot see the 192.190.0.0/16 route ?
>
> It is because the redistributed route has not it's normal subnet mask /24
??
>
> Thanks for your help.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:22:52 GMT-3