No, I meant what I said regarding the default classful behavior of EIGRP. It defaults to classful auto-summarization, and it also defaults to classful masks on the network statement. OSPF, on the other hand, requires that you specify the wildcard bits. It does not assume you mean the entire classful network.
Regardless, thanks for confirming my thoughts on which way to enable OSPF. On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jay McMickle <[email protected]> wrote: > With the exception that EIGRP defaults to classful boundaries, sure. I'm > sure you didn't mean to type that, but just in case, yes, you can specify a > /32 mask to enable EIGRP on an interface under the router process. > > I can't think of any reason that would make you enable OSPF one way or the > other (interface or router process) for IPv4. > > Regards, > Jay McMickle- CCNP,CCSP,CCDP > Sent from my iPhone > http://mycciepursuit.wordpress.com > > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Bob McCouch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That's actually what it means in all cases, right, it's just that > > EIGRP and RIP default to classful masks and thus may enable the > > protocol on more interfaces than intended, wouldn't you agree? > > > > BGP is the exception where it literally only specifies the networks to > > advertise and is completely independent of activating the protocol on > > an interface. > > > > Bob > > -- > > Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any typos. > > > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Matt Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> One thing to think about is what the "network" command actually does > >> for your favourite routing protocol. > >> > >> Remember with OSPF (as opposed to RIP or BGP in particular), the > >> network command does not mean "advertise this network", it means, > >> "allow these interfaces to participate in OSPF". > >> > >> But yes, yo are completely right on all points :) > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Matt > >> > >> CCIE #22386 > >> CCSI #31207 > >> > >> On 3 January 2012 10:52, Bob McCouch <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> I think I know the answer on this one, but just looking for some > feedback. > >>> Since discovering the "ip ospf X area Y" interface command, I've been > >>> strongly preferring this for assigning interfaces to areas in my labs. > >>> Little chance for accidentally enabling OSPF on too many interfaces, > and > >>> just more obvious to my eyes. > >>> > >>> Clearly if a task were to demand that the interfaces be enabled using > only > >>> a router configuration command (or without any interface-level > commands), > >>> or required enabling OSPF on multiple interfaces with a single > command, or > >>> something to that effect, then using a 'network' statement under OSPF > would > >>> be required. > >>> > >>> Otherwise, any reason not to continue to use the interface command if > I'm > >>> not otherwise restricted from doing so? The solution guides in all the > >>> workbooks I'm working through seem to default to using the network > >>> statement, but if there's no restriction can I not just opt to use the > >>> interface-level command instead? > >>> > >>> Just making sure I'm not getting into a bad habit by accident... > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > _______________________________________________ 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 http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
