Steven Aiello wrote: > > Hello All, > > I have a question about route summarization. I was reading > over the > material from Cisco on the matter, I was wondering; or actually > assuming. If you want to have route summarization in place to > you need > continuos network numbers? I know that the docs. said you > would send a > network address upstream that would reflect the bit that are > common to > all networks thus decreasing the size of the routing tables > which is > great. But what if someone else owned a network block on the > net that > was randomly missing from your group? Again, I can only assume > that you > must have all continuous networks. Is this correct, or am I > missing > something? > > Thank you all, > Steven > >
More or less I think that's true. But in the example where someone else has a block of addresses from the middle of an otherwise contiguous block, that can be accommodated. In most instances, the most specific match is used. So as long as that rouge block was being advertised with a more specific mask, there shouldn't be any problems. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62353&t=62347 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
