what gets me is how Cisco says they support CIDR in their implementation of RIPv2, and yet CIDR routes are not advertised natively. You have to F*****G redistribute CIDR routes into RIPv2 before they will be advertised. Exactly what good is that?
Oh, and boo to CCO for the absolute lack of any information on this. ""Pierre-Alex Guanel"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > Ok, you win :) > > Pierre-Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Chuck > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: VLSM and CIDR [7:37031] > > > well, to continue to beat this dead horse ( like anyone cares about RIPv2 > CIDR anyway ) > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > 172.17.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 172.17.1.0 is directly connected, TokenRing0 > 173.4.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > C 173.4.57.0 is directly connected, Loopback0 > 161.52.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets > R 161.52.1.0 [120/1] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:24, Virtual-Access1 > 132.31.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks > C 132.31.99.8/32 is directly connected, Virtual-Access1 > C 132.31.99.0/24 is directly connected, Virtual-Access1 > C 192.168.0.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0 > C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial1 > C 200.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Loopback101 > R 201.0.0.0/15 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:11, Virtual-Access1 > R 96.0.0.0/4 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:00, Virtual-Access1 > R 203.0.0.0/8 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:00, Virtual-Access1 > R 129.0.0.0/12 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:00, Virtual-Access1 > C 181.48.0.0/13 is directly connected, Loopback201 > R7# > > note all the CIDR routes in the routing table, all learned via RIP. > > How? > > interface Loopback101 > ip address 201.0.0.1 255.254.0.0 > ! > interface Loopback1001 > ip address 203.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 > ! > interface Loopback1002 > ip address 129.1.1.1 255.240.0.0 > ! > interface Loopback1003 > ip address 100.1.1.1 240.0.0.0 > ! > router rip > version 2 > redistribute connected metric 5 > network 132.31.0.0 > network 161.52.0.0 > network 201.0.0.0 > no auto-summary > > you apparently do have to redistribute the CIDR routes into RIPv2. Silly me. > Why wouldn't that be obvious? > > Chuck > > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > 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=37048&t=37031 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
