The key point in this case is to have OSPF advertising the real subnet, instead of /32 address. In order to achieve it , add ip ospf network ponit-to-pont under interface config.
> _____________________________________ > Henrique Issamu Terada, CCIE # 7460 > IT Support - Open Network > CPM S.A. - Tecnologia criando valor > Tel.: 55 11 4196-0710 > Fax: 55 11 4196-0900 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.cpm.com.br > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------- > Esta mensagem pode conter informagco confidencial e/ou privilegiada. Se > vocj nco for o destinatario ou a pessoa autorizada a receber esta > mensagem, nco pode usar, copiar ou divulgar as informagues nela contidas > ou tomar qualquer agco baseada nessas informagues. Se vocj recebeu esta > mensagem por engano, por favor avise imediatamente o remetente, > respondendo o e-mail e em seguida apague-o. Agradecemos sua cooperagco. > > This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If > you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, > you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message > or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, > please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this > message. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Zsombor Papp [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Enviada em: segunda-feira, 23 de junho de 2003 11:21 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Assunto: Re: Loopback subnet mask [7:71121] > > Hi, > > IMHO it is technically incorrect to configure anything but /32 on a > loopback. Last time I checked, OSPF in IOS advertised the loopback address > > as /32 regardless of the configured mask, but other protocols did not (ie. > > they advertised the mask as you configured it). So if you ever configure > two or more loopbacks with /24 and they happen to be in the same subnet, > and the routing protocol happens to advertise this information as you > configured it, then you will have an unreachable loopback. > > Thanks, > > Zsombor > > At 08:25 AM 6/23/2003 +0000, Lesly Verdier wrote: > >Hi Group, > > > >I'm practicing the Satterlee and Hutnik labs. Sometimes they > >ask to configure the loopback interfaces differently. > > > >interface Loopback 0 > > ip address 26.26.26.26 255.255.255.0 > > > >or > > > >interface Loopback 0 > > ip address 29.29.29.29 255.255.255.255 > > > > > >Is there a subtle but important difference between a /24 subnet > >mask and a /32 subnet mask? When and why do you prefer one over > >the other? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Lesly Verdier > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18/06/2003 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71158&t=71121 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
