Ed Here is my understanding of this. The 28 and 29 bit subnets will be auto summarized by one of the 24 bit subnets in your routing table when you are using a 24 bit mask between the two routers. I believe this is the expected operation of IGRP as it is a classfull routing protocol and will auto summarize. To achieve what you want maybe the use if EIGRP with auto summarization turned off and specifying manual summarization of a 29 bit mask for the out going interface of R1 will work.
That's my 5cents worth, please correct me if I'm lost guys. Mike p.s. I've had that coffee now.. -----Original Message----- From: Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 June 2002 08:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: IGRP Routes - Classless Networks with Tunnels [7:47415] How feasible is this, and has anyone tried it? R1 is connected to R2... in my case, it is an Ethernet link. The link is on the 172.16.64.0 network with a 24 bit mask. R1 has several subnets in the 172.16 major network, but with different masks. In my case, 24, 28 and 29 bit masks. R2 sees all of the networks with the 24 bit masks, but drops the networks with the odd masks. Basic classfull rules observed. The goal it to get the 28 and 29 bit masks to R2 WITHOUT the use of SUMMARIZATION. If I create a tunnel between R1 and R2 with a subnet of 172.16.81.0 29 bit mask.... the networks with the 29 bit masks show on R2. As soon as I create the second tunnel to take care of the 28 bit masks, the /29 routes disappear and the /28 doesn't make it. On R2, I am making the tunnels passive to prevent loops. Shouldn't this work? Am I missing something. Again, the goal is to get the networks with the specified subnet to appear on R2 without summarization. Comments are appreciated. Ed Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47472&t=47415 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
