From: Rodgers Moore (rodgers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 28 2001 - 21:13:55 GMT-3
Unless, of course you happen to be dealing with an IOS version that has a bug t
hat if the mask doesn't match then the interface doesn't become part of the osp
f area. Sorry, I don't remember the version number 12.0.x something or the oth
er. I ran into this last year in my own lab.
Rodgers Moore
Peter Van Oene wrote:
> Personally, I'd not use 0.0.0.255 in any case, lab or otherwise. The full 0'
s mask is the safe and accurate way to add interfaces to the OSPF process and u
nless you need to add 20 odd interfaces, I'd suggest you use it. As far as the
lab goes, I can attest that lab grading is fair. You shouldn't worry about tr
ivial semantics. If your prepared, you'll likely have a good idea when you are
using an illegal shortcut.
>
> Pete
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 5/28/2001 at 7:48 AM Don Dettmore wrote:
>
> >Question - How nit-picky are the graders of the lab? F0r example,
> >something
> >occurred to me when I was working in the lab:
> >
> >192.168.1.0 /24 ------ R1 ----- 1.1.1.0 /29
> >
> >When configuring R1 for OSPF, would the following be acceptable:
> >
> >network 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0.0.0.0
> >
> >Or would that be considered wrong because of the 'wrong' (or I should say -
> >not specific enough) wildcard mask.
> >
> >Just wondering how anal I must train myself to be.
> >
> >Don Dettmore
> >**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 - 10:30:55 GMT-3