Re: OSPF Network Statement

Marcelo -

Your solution looks great!

A question to ask would be: "how is a script going to grade this?"

If they are looking for syntax, perhaps they are looking for redistribution.
If they are looking at the routing table, perhaps they are looking for an external OSPF route.
Or perhaps they don't care, as long as they have reachability to that network from across the domain.

Again, your solution is cleaner, from a functional perspective.

Best wishes,

Keith H. Barker, CCIE #6783
Instructor
kbarker_at_ine.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://ine.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344

On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Marcelo Rosa wrote:

> Hi people.
>
> There4s a question in my lab t elling me to insert interface E0/1 in the OSPF
> process, without using the "network" command under the ospf process.
>
> My solution was this:
>
> interface Ethernet0/1
> ip address 183.10.6.6 255.255.255.0
> ip ospf 1 area 46
> full-duplex
> !
> router ospf 1
> router-id 150.10.6.6
> log-adjacency-changes
> network 150.10.6.6 0.0.0.0 area 46
> network 183.10.46.6 0.0.0.0 area 46
>
> The lab guide solution was a lot more complicated:
>
> router ospf 1
> router-id 150.1.6.6
> network 150.1.6.6 0.0.0.0 area 46
> network 183.1.46.6 0.0.0.0 area 46
> redistribute connected route-map CONNECTED->OSPF subnets
> !
> ip prefix-list VLAN_6 permit 183.1.6.0/24
> !
> route-map CONNECTED->OSPF permit 10
> match ip address prefix-list VLAN_6
>
>
> So, my question is: Am I crazy? Isn4t my solution a clearly simpler and more
> performing solution, without the need for a route-map? Or maybe there4s a
> difference in the be haviour of the two solutions?
>
> Thks in advance.
>
>
> 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 Wed Jul 28 2010 - 10:53:02 ART