From: Abu Bucker (abu.bucker@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2006 - 03:55:49 GMT-3
yes, the culprit was the virtual link.
I summarised the routes on the other end router of the virtual link and it
solved the prob.
Thanks everyone :)
Regards,
Abu Bucker
On 4/14/06, Jian Gu <guxiaojian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And you forgot to summarize on the router which does not have "physical"
> connection to area 0. If you look at the data base, you will find that
where
> those component routes are originated from.
>
>
> On 4/13/06, Jian Gu <guxiaojian@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Most probably area 2 is also a transit area for a virtual link
> >
> >
> > On 4/13/06, Abu Bucker <abu.bucker@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > i am trying to summarize the following routes a.b.8.0/24 to a.b.11.0/24
> > > as
> > > a.b.8.0/22 on ABR using *area 2 range a.b.8.0 255.255.252.0* (The
> > > network
> > > a.b.8.0 /24 to a.b.11.0 /24 belong to area 2)
> > >
> > > Only this summarised route should be advertised to other routers in
> > > area 0
> > > and routers in other areas connected to area 0, but i find the
> > > individual
> > > routes a.b.8.0 /24 to a.b.11.0/24 as well as the summarised route
> > > a.b.8.0/22
> > > in the routing table of other routers.
> > >
> > > Anyone got a clue to this, why its happening? I want to see only
> > > summarised
> > > route in the routing table of other backbone routers and routers in
> > > other
> > > areas.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Abu Bucker
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 01 2006 - 11:41:57 GMT-3