From: Narbik Kocharians (narbikk@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 04 2007 - 13:32:34 ART
I guess this is matter of preference, as long as you know the behavior of
what you are entering you should be fine.
Personally, I like to be as specific as possible so if I wanted to run OSPF
on a given interface I would choose one of the following, but once again, as
long as you know the behavior you will be fine, just spend 30 minutes and
plug and play.
Int S0/0
Ip ospf 1 area 0 (Or what ever the area the interface should be in)
Router ospf 1
Network 150.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
On 1/4/07, Guyler, Rik <rguyler@shp-dayton.org> wrote:
>
> Really, reading every little detail and "seeing" all the various
> interpretations will only make you better in the lab. I typically use the
> exact same address/mask in my OSPF processes as I do on the interface,
> which
> also exactly matches only the interface intended so you can do this either
> way. I think you'll find that the consensus is divided on this topic. I
> believe I've seen Brian Dennis do it my way and yet Brian McGahan use the
> host address so if these two can agree to disagree, I guess we can too.
> Either way, there aren't really any technical differences, just some lab
> author's way of making you think just a little more. ;-)
>
> Rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Frank
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:21 AM
> To: alexeim@orcsoftware.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: ospf wildcard bits
>
> Alexei Monastyrnyi schrieb:
>
> OK, thank you. I just was confused about "exactly match", that brought me
> to
> the idea, to match it more close also to the netmask, because i have not
> seen this kind of wording.
>
> Normaly i would also configure it with the 0.0.0.0 mask. In ospfv3 it's
> already only an interface definition.
>
> What i found is, that i will be sometimes confused about the wording in
> the
> questions. Thinking it might be that there is something hidden i don't
> expect. People have so must written about reading each task very
> carefully,
> that maybe i'm now sometimes a little bit picky. That's not bad. Just
> takes
> some time if you think to much on how to do it. That might be a problem
> than.
>
> Thanks also for the other answers.
>
>
> Frank
>
> > Hi.
> > I would go for the first one if it is asked for exact match.
> > Those two are quite the same in this case, but should you go for /25
> > etc mask on interface, that might become critical. I think 0.0.0.0
> > wildcard is the best practice until said otherwise.
> >
> > HTH
> > A.
> >
> > on 1/4/2007 1:52 PM Frank wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> what does it mean if i have configure ospf network statements to
> >> "match the interface exaclty"?
> >>
> >> interface s0/0
> >> ip add 150.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> >>
> >> router ospf 1
> >> netwo 150.1.1.1 0.0.0.0
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> router ospf 1
> >> netwo 150.1.1.1 0.0.0.255
> >>
> >> The first configuration does match the ip address exactly and the
> >> second does match the netmask directly.
> >> What should you choose. I know both are valid, but what would be the
> >> right one regarding to "exaclty match the interface"?
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-- Narbik Kocharians CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security) CCSI# 30832 Network Learning, Inc. (CCIE class Instructor) www.ccbootcamp.com (CCIE Training)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 08 2007 - 23:46:55 ART