From: Mike Ollington (mike.ollington@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 30 2005 - 13:08:49 GMT-3
Yes, I considered that but it wasn't in the code I had - that must be it.
Thanks,
Mike
On 12/30/05, Chula Bandara <chula_bandara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think they are asking for the new feature,
>
> ip ospf 1 area 0 under the relavant interfaces.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: *Mike Ollington <mike.ollington@gmail.com>*
> Reply-To: *Mike Ollington <mike.ollington@gmail.com>*
> To: *ccielab@groupstudy.com*
> Subject: *IEWB v3 vol1 Lab 16 4.1 - OSPF Network Statement*
> Date: *Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:50:45 +0000*
> Hello,
>
> Requirements are that you are to enable Area 0 on the following 3
> interfaces
> with the minimum amount of network statements ensuring that Area 0 isn't
> enabled on one of the other interfaces.
>
> Area 0 Interfaces:
>
> 154.1.3.3/24
> 154.1.13.3/24
> 154.1.23.3/24
>
> Non Area 0 ints:
>
> 154.1.0.3/24
> 154.1.38.3/24
>
> I didn't appreciate when I started calculating wildcard masks that OSPF
> network statements appear to be inverse masks rather than wildcards. This
> network 154.1.3.0 0.0.30.255 area 0 throws an error: OSPF: Invalid
> address/mask combination (discontiguous mask).
>
> Not sure if I'm being blind but I can't see how to concatenate these into
> two or one statements without touching the 154.1.0.3 interface.
>
> Appreciate any tips.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:52 GMT-3