Re: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]
A 32 bit masks is a great way to use the useless for loopbacks. It's been a few months since I've worked with an OSPF network, but I believe this is or was the default value regardless (can't remember the version I was working in @ the time)... All the Best !!! Phil - Original Message - From: "YY" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:39 PM Subject: RE: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796] > Loopback is always advertised as 32bit host route no matter what mask you > assign to it. > To advertise it as a subnet route, use "ip ospf network point-to-point" > under int loop0 > > Cheers, > YY > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Edmondson, Dorothy M > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796] > > > Is there a preferred addressing scheme for loopback address when > implementing OSPF? > Recently, I read in "Cisco Routers for IP Routing, Little Black Book" using > 10.0.0.2/32? What is your experience using 32 bit mask? > > Thank you. > Dorothy > > > Dorothy Edmondson, CCNP +Voice Access, CCNA, CCDA, CCSI > WCS , FIS Quality Practices > > *Mail: NCR Corporation > 1529 Brown St. EMD-4 > Dayton, OH 45479 > > * E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Office: Voice: 937 445-4133 VP 622-4133 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16915&t=16796 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]
Loopback is always advertised as 32bit host route no matter what mask you assign to it. To advertise it as a subnet route, use "ip ospf network point-to-point" under int loop0 Cheers, YY -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Edmondson, Dorothy M Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796] Is there a preferred addressing scheme for loopback address when implementing OSPF? Recently, I read in "Cisco Routers for IP Routing, Little Black Book" using 10.0.0.2/32? What is your experience using 32 bit mask? Thank you. Dorothy Dorothy Edmondson, CCNP +Voice Access, CCNA, CCDA, CCSI WCS , FIS Quality Practices *Mail: NCR Corporation 1529 Brown St. EMD-4 Dayton, OH 45479 > * E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Office:Voice: 937 445-4133 VP 622-4133 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16837&t=16796 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]
Assigning recognizable addresses with /32 masks would be considered best practises in my opinion. Ideally, these are publicly routable in the SP space. *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 8/22/2001 at 9:02 AM Edmondson, Dorothy M wrote: >Is there a preferred addressing scheme for loopback address when >implementing OSPF? >Recently, I read in "Cisco Routers for IP Routing, Little Black Book" using >10.0.0.2/32? What is your experience using 32 bit mask? > >Thank you. >Dorothy > > >Dorothy Edmondson, CCNP +Voice Access, CCNA, CCDA, CCSI >WCS , FIS Quality Practices > >*Mail: NCR Corporation > 1529 Brown St. EMD-4 > Dayton, OH 45479 >> * E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >*Office: Voice: 937 445-4133 VP 622-4133 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16805&t=16796 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]
We use valid addresses as loopback in OSPF, so we assigned an entire class C to loopbackaddresses on routers. it works fine. -Original Message- From: Edmondson, Dorothy M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: quarta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2001 10:03 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796] Is there a preferred addressing scheme for loopback address when implementing OSPF? Recently, I read in "Cisco Routers for IP Routing, Little Black Book" using 10.0.0.2/32? What is your experience using 32 bit mask? Thank you. Dorothy Dorothy Edmondson, CCNP +Voice Access, CCNA, CCDA, CCSI WCS , FIS Quality Practices *Mail: NCR Corporation 1529 Brown St. EMD-4 Dayton, OH 45479 > * E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Office:Voice: 937 445-4133 VP 622-4133 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16798&t=16796 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]
Is there a preferred addressing scheme for loopback address when implementing OSPF? Recently, I read in "Cisco Routers for IP Routing, Little Black Book" using 10.0.0.2/32? What is your experience using 32 bit mask? Thank you. Dorothy Dorothy Edmondson, CCNP +Voice Access, CCNA, CCDA, CCSI WCS , FIS Quality Practices *Mail: NCR Corporation 1529 Brown St. EMD-4 Dayton, OH 45479 > * E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Office:Voice: 937 445-4133 VP 622-4133 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16796&t=16796 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
