From: jonatale@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 01:44:47 GMT-3
really?
that's wierd
i'd go as far as to say it's a bug
is this in the docs anywhere?
what is the justifications for such behavior?
any comments?
Yves Fauser wrote:
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> If you want to take an Interface into ospf it doesn't matter which of the
> statement you use.
> But be aware of the consequences that the 0.0.0.0 wildcard mask has, it
> changes the forwarding address in the database.
> To be short if you use the 0.0.0.0 Mask the forwarding address will be 0.0.0.
0
> in the LSA. If you take 0.0.0.255 the forwarding address will be the address
> of the next hop. You can have various Problems with 0.0.0.0 or next hop
> depending on the topology. Another thing is that there is a Bug in all
> versions when redistributing ospf into RIP.
>
> I'll send some links later.
>
> Yves
>
> Jeffrey Levine wrote:
>
> > I have noticed in some lab scenarios that when the instructions say that a
> > router interface should be advertised in a routing protocol, the labs
> > sometimes advertise only the interface, othertimes an entire subnet.
> >
> > For example, let's say it's an ethernet interface with address
> > 192.168.1.1/24 being advertised under OSPF. I've seen the following:
> >
> > router ospf 64
> > net 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
> >
> > or
> >
> > router ospf 64
> > net 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.255 area 0
> >
> > I wouldn't be concerned if there were some consistency. I've seen the lab
> > instructions state "interface" and then seen the entire network advertised
> > and vice-versa.
> >
> > Any thought?
> >
> > Jeffrey S. Levine
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:51 GMT-3