From: Rob Hopkins (rshopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 18 2001 - 16:28:46 GMT-3
youre 100% right, but it you could add secondary ip's to r2 to compensate.
I agree this is getting horrendous, but what other options are avail ?
1> static routes (not allowed)
2> classless routing protocol (not allowed)
3> route maps (limited use at best)
4> tweaking subnet masks and using secondary addresses (very ugly,but
semi-functional)
5> worse yet, bridge ip
6> ducttape and wd40
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>
To: "'Alejandro Cadarso'" <a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com>; "Rob Hopkins"
<rshopkins@earthlink.net>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> Rob,
>
> This is a neat solution, however you could not reach .25.0-.27.0 included
in
> the .24/22 mask. So you lose 3/4 of your reachability and of course also
> make .36-.39 unusable as you already pointed out. So while this solution
> dose not break any rules but also did not fully achieve its primary goal
> which is to make the .24/22 network reachable from the IGRP side.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alejandro Cadarso [mailto:a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:19 PM
> To: Rob Hopkins
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
>
>
> Rob,
>
> It's perfect, that's the solution, or at least one of them ( I cant
> think in any other ).
> Of course there is the limitation you posted:
>
> 172.16.37.0 thru 172.16.39.0 are not available any more but that doesn't
> breaks any stated rule.
> Alejandro
>
>
> Rob Hopkins wrote:
>
> > come on guys, dont give up so easy...
> >
> > change the subnet mask on r1 to /22, I know we were always taught subnet
> > masks should
> > match, but as long as you keep track of what each router "thinks" its
> > connected to, it will be alright..
> > If R1 needed to have any routes from 172.16.37.0 thru 172.16.39.0 you're
> > gonna have bigger problems,
> > (unless they are hanging out on your serial port..) but since it wasnt
in
> > this case..
> >
> > output follows:
> >
> >
> > 172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3 subnets
> > C 172.16.36.0 is directly connected, Serial0
> > I 172.16.24.0 [100/8976] via 172.16.35.1, 00:01:56, Serial0
> > [100/8976] via 172.16.36.1, 00:00:07, Serial0
> > C 172.16.6.0 is directly connected, Loopback100
> > r2#
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alejandro Cadarso" <a.cadarso@uniway-tec.com>
> > To: "Darren Ward" <dward@pla.net.au>; "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>;
> > "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <lkounkar@uu.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> >
> >
> >> Good idea Darren,
> >>
> >> Perhaps your way could work, the problem is that when I try to put any
> >> IP address from the /24's in a loopback I have:
> >>
> >> >r4(config-if)#ip address 172.16.26.1 255.255.255.0
> >> >172.16.26.0 overlaps with Ethernet0
> >>
> >> This sounds logical because in this case we would have two interfaces
in
> >> the same /24 network
> >>
> >> Louie Answer could be better the problem is that I have another OSPF
> >> Router in the same mayor network and I'm not allowed to change it.
> >>
> >> Thanks very much for your help, but I think there is no answer.
> >>
> >> Alejandro.
> >>
> >>
> >> Darren Ward wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hows this sound for a silly idea:
> >>>
> >>> The requirement is to get a /20 into a /24 IGRP domain.
> >>> The second requirement is that no static's can be used at all.
> >>>
> >>> Create a second OSPF process on the redistributing router (ospf 2 for
> >>
> > arguments
> >
> >>> sake)
> >>> Create one or more loopbacks and put the 4 /24's on it.
> >>> Redistribute the ospf 2 into IGRP and IGRP into ospf 1.
> >>>
> >>> You may need to do some tweaking on the border router, maybe policy
> >>
> > routing at
> >
> >>> worst.
> >>>
> >>> Darren
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Walter Chen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The "area x range" command won't work in this case because it won't
> >>>
> > change
> >
> >>>> the way directly connected networks are redistributed to IGRP. Using
> >>>
> > static
> >
> >>>> routes in this case is preferred because you only need four of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, if you were asked to redistribute /20 OSPF into /28 IGRP (in
> >>>
> > this
> >
> >>>> case you have to configure 256 static routes!) or you were not
allowed
> >>>
> > to
> >
> >>>> use static routes, then you could configure a separate major network
> >>>
> > with a
> >
> >>>> /24 mask in OSPF domain, say, 192.168.1.0/24 and redistribute it into
> >>>
> > IGRP.
> >
> >>>> >From the IGRP router, configure this network to be your
> >>>
> > default-network to
> >
> >>>> let you reach the OSPF 172.16.x.x/20 networks.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are now allowed to use either static or IGRP default-network,
> >>>
> > then
> >
> >>>> you're stuck.
> >>>>
> >>>> Walter
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Michel GASPARD [mailto:mgaspard@cisco.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 8:12 AM
> >>>> To: Alejandro Cadarso
> >>>> Cc: ccielab
> >>>> Subject: Re: Redistributing OSPF /22 to IGRP /24, same mayor network
> >>>>
> >>>> Alejandro,
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you already tried the "area x range" command?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Michel
> >>>>
> >>>> Alejandro Cadarso wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm playing with the following scenario and was unable to imagine
how
> >>>>> can I get 172.16.24.0/22 redistributed from ospf to igrp for r2
> >>>>> inserting it in its routing table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any suggestions will be appreciated. Of course neither Default
routing
> >>>>> nor static are allowed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ospf igrp loop0
> >>>>> -------------r1------------------r2----172.16.6.0/24
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 172.16.24.0/22 172.16.36.0/24
> >>>>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> >>>>
> >>>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> >>>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> >>>
> >>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> >>
> >> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:49 GMT-3