From: Roman Rodichev (rodic000@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 21:23:56 GMT-3
no, the configs are clean, just what I've said. Aaryn also suggests using
static route on R2 with /25 route, instead of summary on R1.
Basically, this can be a problem when you are trying to send routes from
VLSM to FLSM trying to redistribute into longer mask, like from /22 EIGRP
into /24 RIP. The _ONLY_ way to do it is redistributing static routes
pointing to a _PHYSICAL INTERFACE_. Unless someone knows a better way?
>From: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>
>To: 'Roman Rodichev' <rodic000@hotmail.com>, "McCallum, Robert"
><Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>, Aaryn.Pickell@getronics.com,
>jmuruchi@yahoo.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Administrative distance
>Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:28:04 +0100
>
>yeah but do you have ip subnet zero OR no ip classless OR access list 100
>permit any any doom , access list deny any any stupid routing decisions.
>
>On a serious note what happens if you don't summarise. I cant try it as I
>am sat in a hotel room for the next week. Hence why I am still on line at
>this time. I am normally well in bed by now!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roman Rodichev [mailto:rodic000@hotmail.com]
>Sent: 04 June 2001 23:16
>To: Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com; Aaryn.Pickell@getronics.com;
>jmuruchi@yahoo.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Administrative distance
>
>
>
>Aaryn is right
>
>try this funny scenario:
>
>R1--R2
>
>both run EIGRP
>
>R1 interface is 192.168.0.1/24
>R2 interface is 192.168.0.2/24
>
>now put ip summary-address eigrp X 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.128 on R1's
>interface, R2 will no longer be able to ping local interface
>
>Roman
>
> >From: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>
> >Reply-To: "McCallum, Robert" <Robert.McCallum@let-it-be-thus.com>
> >To: "'Pickell, Aaryn'" <Aaryn.Pickell@getronics.com>, "'Juan
>Carlos
>
> >Muruchi'" <jmuruchi@yahoo.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: Administrative distance
> >Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:51:39 +0100
> >
> >Shoot me down in flames now if need be BUT I am having a lapse in
> >concentration i.e. too late at night.... the rules of route picking... is
> >it
> >not directly connected b4 longest match? or does longest match win
>overall?
> >I am sure it is the latter but my brain is now questioning me as if I am
> >wrong !!!!
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Pickell, Aaryn [mailto:Aaryn.Pickell@getronics.com]
> >Sent: 04 June 2001 20:56
> >To: 'Juan Carlos Muruchi'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: Administrative distance
> >
> >
> >Not that I know of.
> >
> >You can sort of work around this, though... if you have a /24 network
> >directly connected, and you want to use a different route to get to that
> >segment, you can use two /25 routes in your routing table. That way, the
> >longest match will supercede and you'll take the other path, instead of
>the
> >directly connected.
> >
> >It's up to you to generate the two /25 routes, though. Statics, or
>inject
> >them into a routing protocol somewhere else... whatever.
> >
> >Aaryn Pickell - CCNP ATM, CCDP, MCSE
> >Senior Engineer - Routing Protocols
> >Getronics Inc.
> >Direct: 713-394-1609
> >Email:aaryn.pickell@getronics.com
> >
> >This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
> >privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me
> >immediately by replying to this message and please destroy all copies of
> >this message and attachments. Thank you.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Juan Carlos Muruchi [mailto:jmuruchi@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:36 PM
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Administrative distance
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if it is posible to change
> > > administrative distance of a directly conected
> > > network?
> > > If it is posible, how can you do it?
> > > Regards,
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:18 GMT-3