Re: Rip Networks

Thanks Guys

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Anthony Sequeira <asequeira_at_ine.com> wrote:

> Careful Aashish!
>
> It sounds like you might be confusing EIGRP with RIP version 2. With RIP v2
> all we can specify is a classful network prefix - no mask. The IOS will
> actually let you type in the exact subnet address, but when you look at the
> running-config, you will see the classful representation.
>
> Also, remember the network command when used with IGPs is not really
> indicated what prefix that is advertised. This is more the behavior of the
> network command with BGP. It is my belief that Cisco is moving away from the
> use of the network command with IGPs as a result of this confusion.
>
> With RIP version 2 we would indeed need to filter the 10.10.12.0/24 prefix
> if we did not want it advertised to R3 in the example below.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Anthony J. Sequeira, CCIE #15626
> http://www.INE.com <http://www.ine.com/>
>
> Test your Core Knowledge today!
> Q: What IP Precedence bit settings were recommended for Voice traffic?
> A: 101
> More Info: http://my.safaribooksonline.com/1578701163/app07
>
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 6:13 AM, aashish kapoor wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I think if you use
>> no auto-summary
>> command and then advertise the specific network with mask you will not get
>> magicall connectivity.
>>
>> correct me if I am wrong
>>
>> Regards
>> Aashish Kapoor
>> Training is to make as many mistake as much possible so that once done you
>> know all the wrong ways...
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Rob Phillips <rrphillips_at_swankav.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> I have been wondering if I am reading to much into questions or not enough
>>> when it come to RIP. See the example below and if something like it
>>> happened
>>> to show up on a lab how would you handle it?
>>>
>>> R1 --- 10.10.12.0/24 ---- R2 ---- 10.10.23.0/24 ---- R3
>>> |
>>> |
>>> Loopback 1
>>> 10.10.2.2/32
>>>
>>>
>>> Questiomn asks you to Enable rip on R2 and R3. Put the link between R2
>>> and
>>> R3
>>> as well as R2's loopback into RIP.
>>>
>>> So you do the following on R2
>>>
>>> router rip
>>> ver 2
>>> no auto
>>> network 10.0.0.0
>>> default pass
>>> no pass int f0/1 - Interface between R2 and R3
>>>
>>>
>>> Now after you configure R3 you will see the 10.10.12.0/24 network from
>>> R3.
>>> In
>>> this way R3 has "magically connectivity" to the 10.10.12.0 network via
>>> RIP.
>>>
>>> Now I could filter that network out of the updates such as an offset list
>>> of
>>> 16 directed on the outbound updates to R3 to make it disappear. So,
>>> would
>>> any
>>> of you go through that step to filter out the additional network?
>>>
>>> I can see it looked at in grading to be a toss up. Would that be a good
>>> question to ask the Proctor. Something like "I understand that Rip's
>>> network
>>> command is classful based, so by adding the Network 10.0.0.0 command will
>>> pull
>>> all of the 10.x.x.x networks into Rip. Is this acceptable or should I
>>> filter
>>> the network(s) no listed in the question from being broadcasted to other
>>> RIP
>>> routers"
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Fri Oct 02 2009 - 20:02:04 ART