On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Joseph Mays wrote: > It feels strange to be asking a question about something as simple as a > subnet here, but I'm honestly not sure what's going on in this case. Probably > something simple. > > As you can see from the following set of commands, the router is fine with > breaking the following addresses up into /30's, but not fine with the > aggregate of the two routes into a /29. > > gw1.armplc(config)#ip route 216.24.2.4 255.255.255.252 216.24.0.54 > gw1.armplc(config)#no ip route 216.24.2.4 255.255.255.252 216.24.0.54 > gw1.armplc(config)#ip route 216.24.2.8 255.255.255.252 216.24.0.54 > gw1.armplc(config)#no ip route 216.24.2.8 255.255.255.252 216.24.0.54 > gw1.armplc(config)#ip route 216.24.2.4 255.255.255.248 216.24.0.54 > %Inconsistent address and mask > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
216.24.2.4 is not the network address in this case for a /29 (.248) netmask. 216.24.2.0 is the network address for that mask. The proper statement would be "ip route 216.24.2.0 255.255.255.248 216.24.0.54" Regards, Ryan Wilkins _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
