Yes, Doyle clearly points out that even when the network 172.19.35.15 Statement is removed, this secondary address CAN be advertised in OSPF as long as the primary is running OSPF, although the secondary Will not be able to source Hellos. You will need to add the "subnets" keyword. See http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/3.html#14.0.
I'll let you know when I get this Case study running at home tomorrow. HTH, Elmer -----Original Message----- From: routerjocky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 1:29 PM To: Elmer Deloso Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF-Doyle Vol 1 pp 531-533 [7:22021] > Hi. > I haven't implemented this Case Study yet, but > The info in the Routing table for Rubens (Area 1) is > Correct. Matisse (Area 192.168.10.0) has OSPF running nay, the routing table is incorrect for this part...read Issue #1 > On the primary address of its e0. 172.19.35.15 > Is configured as a secondary on e0. Page 526 clearly explains Issue #1: Read the config on 530 and the 1st paragraph on 531. he claims to have removed the secondary from the OSPF config, yet IA 172.19.35.0 still shows up at Rubens. Issue #2: The routing table on Rubens is still wrong, even if the secondary is still intact and advertised IA. It's not a (classful) /16 subnet, it's a /25 subnet. (I didn't see an area range command for 172.19 anywhere in the config) > The two rules related to how OSPF interacts with secondary > Addresses. To answer your question, yes this will be flooded > To Area 0 by Matisse (now an ASBR) as an IA route, not as an > E2 (the default) for external routes (page 512) in this case > All RIP routes from Dali redistributed into OSPF will be seen by > The other OSPF routers as E2. Page 530's configuration also shows > The "redistribute rip metric 10" thus defaulting to an E2 type. My issue is not with metric-type 1 or 2... I know how to change those and I'm not questioning the validity of E2. In fact he makes the point of showing the E2 cost (10) all the way to Rubens as opposed to E1 (cumulative) cost. In fact, I'll add to this exercise to change the cost of just a few of the redistributed RIP routes to metric-type 1 (just for fun and practice) Issue #3: without net 172.19.0.0 a 192.168.10.0 in the OSPF config, it does not get advertised at all, much less as an E2 route, but it's a directly-connected RIP route. Does a redistribute connected need to be added to get that route into OSPF? > > Elmer > -----Original Message----- > From: routerjocky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OSPF-Doyle Vol 1 pp 531-533 [7:22021] > > Okay, I gotta figure that something is wrong, but I don't get 172.19.35.0 > advertised at Rubens unless I keep the secondary address on Matisse as an > OSPF > network. It also shows the route as IA, not E2, indicating it's an OSPF > route, and I sure don't get the mask mismatch problem, as it's subnetted as > a > /25, not as a /16. > > Anyone else have the same result? > Can anyone explain it? > Is there something rotten in Denmark? (besides linburger cheese?) > Maybe someone snuck the network stmt for 172.19.35.0 into ospf 40 when he > wasn't looking? > Or does this constitute errata? (it's not in the existing errata sheet) > > thanks > -e- (being onery tonight) > May the route be with you > Switch if you must, route if you can ;-) > http://members.home.net/airwrck > ..and this one, just for Peter... > 'Routing between VLANS' is a valid statement _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=22089&t=22021 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
