Chuck, to my knowledge the command "ip summary-address" is used to summarize IP address pools for dial-up clients,
not for actually summarizing subnets. Also, Cisco CCNA Certification Guide (ISBN 0-7357-0971-8), page 393 says: "EIGRP and OSPF are the only interior IP routing protocols to support route aggregation". So I am prone to conclude that the ability to do VLSM does not automatically means that you can do CIDR ..... My two cents ... Pierre-Alex -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: VLSM and CIDR [7:37031] kinda in answer to your private message: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_c /ipcprt2/1cdrip.htm watch the wrap according to this, Cisco's implementation of Ripv2 does indeed support CIDR On the other hand, getting this to work appears to be problematic. A check of Doyle shows no CIDR example for Ripv2 A look though Large Scale IP Network Solutions yields this interesting sentence: "RIPV2 is able to support classless interdomain routes. It can propagate a classless route through redistribution" I can't get a damn CIDR route to show up in the RIPv2 table no matter how many hokey pokies I do. At this point I'm going to assume you have tried RipV2 and have had the same frustration I just had - seeing no CIDR routes. This calls for a bit more research. Chuck ""Chuck"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > I think you're trying to outsmart yourself. Can't be done!!! ;-> > > I showed you in my private reply the result of the EIGRP test I set up. The > answer was "no problem" > > I also know from long lab rat experience that it is not a problem with OSPF. > > I have not tried with either IS-IS or Ripv2, but again, why not? > > there may be issues with older IOS code. Some vendor older models may not > support it. But I have no reason based on my experience, to believe that it > is an issue with current IOS code. > > Chuck > > > > ""Pierre-Alex Guanel"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > The statement that provoked my question is from RFC 1721. They say > > > > "Subnet masks are also necessary for implementation of "classless" > > addressing, as the CIDR work proposes" > > > > thus the question "if a routing protocol supports subnet mask does that > > automatically mean that it can do CIDR? > > > > ( I think the answer is no because CIDR means that you could have masks > > stilling bits from the newtork ID and the router may not like this .... I > > also think that historically subnetting and Variable Length subnet masking > > came before CIDR. But those are just speculations. I don't have examples / > > references to support my arguments and I would like to know if I am > correct.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Pierre-Alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37045&t=37031 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
