If you do ip summary-address rip n.n.n.n m.m.m.m on an interface, this will work as CIDR.
-- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""Andrew Cook"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > I duplicated this effect. It seems the whole problem lies with RIP network > statements. Although RIPv2 itself can carry classless info, the network > statement to turn RIP on for an interface is classful. Until Cisco allows > the inclusion of netmask info in the network statement as they do for other > routing protocols, I would guess that redistribution is the only way to make > this work - and I'd wager that they aren't really devoting a lot of > development time to RIP anymore! > Incidentally, I created a supernet on a loopback with a /22 and then tried > putting all 4 class Cs into RIP as networks to see if that would magically > fix it - it did not. > Can anyone confirm RIPv2 operation on other vendor equipment? Does anyone > allow a CIDR netblock as a native RIP interface without redistribution? > > PS - as to the need for RIPv2 on a modern network, I am still forced to use > it in many cases for MPLS/VPN. The only routing choices to a CE router are > static, RIPv2, BGP, and OSPF. OSPF is limited because each instance uses up > one protocol descriptor block (PDB), of which you can only have 32. Static > is easy for small customers, but larger ones will almost certainly require > dynamic routing. That leaves us the choice of BGP or RIPv2. It all depends > on whether the end user is comfortable using BGP. Almost everyone has set > up RIP before, so it seems to be the catchall. > > Andrew Cook > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > 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=37213&t=37031 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
