Go to the CCO & check known bugs. I found 11.2(14) in an EIGRP router, that
only caused a memory leak with EIGRP turned on. CCO had it, I swapped 2
routers before I began to turn my attention away from faulty FLASH.
Phil
PS- I do not think default IP Classless & IP Subnet Zero came in until 11.3,
so you always need to watch for that when configing this old stuff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: EIGRP
> however, as has been suggested by Louie Belt and my example shown here:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp4.html
>
> it seems that the network statement has been changed in the latest
> releases..........
>
> Kevin Wigle
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 December, 2000 18:13
> Subject: Re: EIGRP
>
>
> > The 'network' statement in EIGRP is classful and accepts only the
network
> > number with no mask. You cannot specify subnets in the network
statement,
> > as all subnet masks fall on classful boundaries.
> >
> > In your case, "network 200.1.1.0" is all that you can enter. By
default,
> > any interface in the 200.1.1.0/24 subnet would participate in EIGRP,
> > regardless of that interface's actual subnet mask.
> >
> > 'ip classless' and 'ip subnet-zero' have no bearing on this. EIGRP is
> > classless, but the network statement itself is classful. I have no idea
> > why.
> >
> > Remember that in EIGRP, the network statement specifies which interfaces
> > participate in routing, not which networks are advertised.
> >
> > Let's say you have two interfaces, 200.1.1.1/29 and 200.1.1.9/29. If
your
> > network statement is 'network 200.1.1.0', then both of those interfaces
> will
> > participate, but the actual /29 networks will be advertised, just as you
> > would expect.
> >
> > HTH,
> > John
> >
> > > Group,
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Kevin Wigle
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________
> > Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
