Kevin and group,

Here is the answer.

10.0 - EIGRP network command introduced
12.0(4)T - The network-mask argument was added
 
Here's the URL - watch the wrap.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_r/iprprt2/1rdeigrp.htm#xtocid1405116

--- xndr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> EIGRP also as IGRP does not allow you to use
> 'OSPF-like' syntax for
> network-area advertisements.
> The router's IOS is right and points you to your
> fail.
> 
> For future command syntax please refer to
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/np1_r
> /1rprt1/1reigrp.htm#xtocid820596
> 
> --
>  WBW, xander
>  Cisco Consultant
>  CCNP+Voice, CCIE Lab 19-20/04/2001
> 
> 
> > In the lab again looking at a scenario.
> >
> > At first, I configured a transit link with a /24
> mask.
> >
> > Later I thought - gee that's going to be a /29 or
> /30 in real life so I
> went
> > to change it.
> >
> > However, the router wouldn't accept "network
> 200.1.1.0 0.0.0.7" under
> > "router eigrp 10".  It fails with the caret
> pointing at the first zero in
> > the wildcard mask.
> >
> > doing a "?" after "network 200.1.1.0" just comes
> up with a <cr>.
> >
> > However, on CCO I see examples of both statements
> - some with the mask
> > others without.
> >
> > Has the behavior of EIGRP changed lately even so
> that CCO has conflicting
> > examples or am I missing some connection?
> >
> > All routers have ip classless and ip subnet-zero
> configured.
> >
> > By the way, my lab scenario has OSPF
> redistributing the EIGRP. Looking at
> an
> > upstream routing table it shows the EIGRP network
> as a /29 even though
> there
> > is no "mask" in the statement.
> >
> > So what am I missing?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to