From: Chad Marsh (chad@xxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 00:12:26 GMT-3
I agree with the majority, easier to use a 0.0.0.0 mask specifying each
interface that is participating in OSPF, unless all router interfaces are
participating, then one statement of :
network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area x
is more sensible
However, you should be just as comfortable calculating inverse masks as you
are standard ones, basically there are only 8 variations of each:
Standard Inverse
255 0
254 1
252 3
248 7
240 15
224 31
192 63
128 127
0 255
so 255.255.224.0 standard is 0.0.31.255 inverse
or 255.255.255.240 standard is 0.0.0.15 inverse
etc.
In my experience, you are more likely to blow an inverse mask in an
access-list than in an OSPF network statement, cause you'll do way more of
them...
Chad Marsh
CCIE# 5185
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanley Seow <stanley_seow@techno-craft.com.sg>
To: CCIELAB <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 6:42 AM
Subject: OSPF reverse mask
> A quick question....
>
> For example, if the OSPF area X have a /22 bit mask...for the
configuration
> on the router, can I use the specific interface IP address (host mask )
>
> network 172.16.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
> network 172.16.5.1 0.0.0.0 area 1
>
> instead of calculating the reverse mask for odd subnet bit like /22 /25
/26
> /27.
>
> What is the differences betwen the above two reverse mask ??
>
> Stanley
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:15 GMT-3