I don't know the "right" answer to your question, but unless asked to, or implicitly asked, I would not change any IP's/subnet masks.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Bob McCouch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Doing some reading on EIGRP today and came across a note about how two > EIGRP peers can (unlike OSPF) form a neighbor adjacency even with > mismatched IP subnet masks, on the condition that both peers agree > that the other is within their understanding of the subnet definition. > So the example was that two routers addressed with 10.1.1.1/24 and > 10.1.1.2/30, respectively, would neighbor up. > > OK, fine, so this leads to my question: On the lab let's say I had a > task to enable EIGRP for network 10.1.1.0 (mask unspecified...) on the > two routers with the IP addresses in my example above. Simply > configuring: > > router eigrp 1 > no auto > network 10.1.1.x 0.0.0.0 > > Would work, and the neighbor adjacency should form. ASSUMING for the > moment that no subsequent task would require me to fix the mask > mismatch, should I fix it? I realize there could be other implicit > requirements in this case that could force me to fix the mask, but the > general question stands: should I fix something that is "wrong", but > works? > > Thanks! > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
