From: Chris Hugo (chrishugo@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 20:09:32 GMT-3
Great Find Jonathan,
But let's just include one little rule for s#$%s and giggles and say no static routes to null can be implemented....
thanx,
chris hugo
Jonathan Clements wrote:Hey all,
I ran across this and thought it might be an answer to what you are looking
for.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/52.html
jonathan
>From: "Bernard Omrani"
>Reply-To: "Bernard Omrani"
>To:
>CC: "Chris Hugo"
>Subject: RE: What if OSPF routes have shorter masks than RIP?
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:13:32 -0700
>
>Chris,
>Unfortunately, there is none.
>Or, there is one, but the proctor does not like it ;-)
>
>I heard some one (Raj?) did it using a Tunnel. I am yet to see it in
>action.
>
>
>Bernard
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Hugo [mailto:chrishugo@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:22 PM
>To: Bernard Omrani; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: What if OSPF routes have shorter masks than RIP?
>
>Bernard,
>The team and I would like to know your method that will give us that
>slam-dunk. :)
>chris hugo
> Bernard Omrani wrote:
>Secondary addressing on the interface works, but it is not a slam-dunk
>method either. It gets real nasty if you forget to take care of the
>split-horizon issue.
>
>Bernard
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hansang Bae [mailto:hbae@nyc.rr.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:44 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: What if OSPF routes have shorter masks than RIP?
> >
> > At 12:12 AM 9/29/2002 -0600, Young K. Bae wrote:
> > >Hi Chris,
> > >I tried that last night, but it didn't work. Has this been tested by
> > >someone else?
> >
> >
> > Using secondary addressing to overcome VLSM issues is a common
>practice.
> > There are other methods as well, but certainly, secondary addressing
>can
> > be made to work.
> >
> > hsb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:44:07 GMT-3