OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
I configure point-to-multipoint on serial int and the /32 mask show up R1 int s0 ip add 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0 ip ospf net point-to-multi ! router ospf 1 net 172.16.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 similar to ccbootcamp lab 5 , but how to summary those serial to other protocol ? area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on ABR either Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56136&t=56136 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
/32 mask always shows up under the "show interface" commands despite the actual netmask. I'm not sure what you're asking in the other question. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56165&t=56136 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
""ccie ccielab"" wrote in message news:200210231402.OAA29232@;groupstudy.com... > I configure point-to-multipoint on serial int and the /32 mask show up CL: yes - that's the way it is supposed to work. see rfc 2328 for details. > > R1 > int s0 > ip add 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0 > ip ospf net point-to-multi > ! > router ospf 1 > net 172.16.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > similar to ccbootcamp lab 5 , but how to summary those serial to other > protocol ? > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on ABR either > CL: well, area 0 range is an illegal command. you may be able to enter it, but it does nothing. the area range command is design to summarize non backbone routes into the backbone. if you think aout it, there is probably not a real good reaso for backbone routes to be summarized Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56256&t=56136 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
The Long and Winding Road wrote: [snipped] > > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on ABR > either > > > > CL: well, area 0 range is an illegal command. you may be able > to enter it, > but it does nothing. the area range command is design to > summarize non > backbone routes into the backbone. if you think aout it, there > is probably > not a real good reaso for backbone routes to be summarized > > JMcL: Since when?? I use the area 0 range blah blah command (without the "area" at the end, if that was supposed to be part of the command above), and it certainly doesn't do nothing. As far as I've seen, it works in exactly the same way as area anything else range blah blah. Why not summarise backbone routes for the same reasons as summarising non-backbone routes - reduce routing tables, database sizes, route change propagations etc? JMcL Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56396&t=56136 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
""Jenny McLeod"" wrote in message news:200210280429.EAA24675@;groupstudy.com... > The Long and Winding Road wrote: > [snipped] > > > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on ABR > > either > > > > > > > CL: well, area 0 range is an illegal command. you may be able > > to enter it, > > but it does nothing. the area range command is design to > > summarize non > > backbone routes into the backbone. if you think aout it, there > > is probably > > not a real good reaso for backbone routes to be summarized > > > > > JMcL: Since when?? > I use the area 0 range blah blah command (without the "area" at the end, if > that was supposed to be part of the command above), and it certainly doesn't > do nothing. As far as I've seen, it works in exactly the same way as area > anything else range blah blah. All right, Miss Smarty Pants. I don't know what IOS versions you use / have been using, but I have been through this song and dance with OSPF area 0 summarization, or lack thereof for a while now. I have yet to see it work. Seriously, Jen, you know I respect your wisdom and value your advice. I am absolutely certain that I have never successfuly summarized area 0 routes over a couple of years of lab rat living. The following is from my current study pod, and the IOS version is 12.1.5T10. First, router 1 configurations. There are a number of loopbacks,containing the route addresses in question. router ospf 123 log-adjacency-changes area 0 range 100.100.0.0 255.255.240.0 redistribute rip subnets route-map rip2ospf network 99.99.99.1 0.0.0.0 area 51 network 100.100.0.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.2.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.3.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.4.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.5.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.6.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 100.100.7.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 network 160.160.255.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 note the summary in the R1 routing table: Gateway of last resort is not set 100.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 2 masks O 100.100.0.0/20 is a summary, 00:11:57, Null0 now observe router 2's table: 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 8 subnets O 100.100.0.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, TokenRing0 O 100.100.1.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, TokenRing0 O 100.100.2.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, TokenRing0 O 100.100.3.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, TokenRing0 O 100.100.4.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, TokenRing0 O 100.100.5.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, TokenRing0 O 100.100.6.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, TokenRing0 O 100.100.7.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, TokenRing0 99.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets This has remained constant through several reconfigurations and several ospf process resets. It also remain true even if on R1 I use a more generic network 100.100.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 0 command. So I stand by my statement that even though you may be able to enter the commands, the fact is that you cannot summarize area 0 routes on a cisco router, at least not that I've been able to figure out.. My position is further supported by the Cisco documentation, which states "The area range command is used only with area border routers (ABRs). It is used to consolidate or summarize routes for an area. The result is that a single summary route is advertised to other areas by the ABR. Routing information is condensed at area boundaries." http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_r /iprprt2/1rdospf.htm#xtocid4 watch the wrap Of course, I am ready to learn something new, if you've got a trick I have yet to learn. > Why not summarise backbone routes for the same reasons as summarising > non-backbone routes - reduce routing tables, database sizes, route change > propagations etc? In regards to the wisdom of summarizing backbone routes in an OSPF network, while I was pondering your response, I went through a few ideas, and I see where it "might" be advantageous.. I still believe that generally speaking, one would want all backbone routes to be visible throughout the backbone to allow for uninterrupted routing should one or more backbone routers fail. This assuming a redundant backbone design. I can't located specifics in the RFC, but I "suspect" that Mr. Moy is of similar mind. with all respects Chuck -- > > JMcL Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56430&t=56136 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > ""Jenny McLeod"" wrote in message > news:200210280429.EAA24675@;groupstudy.com... > > The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > [snipped] > > > > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on > ABR > > > either > > > > > > > > > > CL: well, area 0 range is an illegal command. you may be > able > > > to enter it, > > > but it does nothing. the area range command is design to > > > summarize non > > > backbone routes into the backbone. if you think aout it, > there > > > is probably > > > not a real good reaso for backbone routes to be summarized > > > > > > > > JMcL: Since when?? > > I use the area 0 range blah blah command (without the "area" > at the end, > if > > that was supposed to be part of the command above), and it > certainly > doesn't > > do nothing. As far as I've seen, it works in exactly the > same way as area > > anything else range blah blah. > > > All right, Miss Smarty Pants. I don't know what IOS versions > you use / have > been using, but I have been through this song and dance with > OSPF area 0 > summarization, or lack thereof for a while now. I have yet to > see it work. > > Seriously, Jen, you know I respect your wisdom and value your > advice. I am > absolutely certain that I have never successfuly summarized > area 0 routes > over a couple of years of lab rat living. The following is from > my current > study pod, and the IOS version is 12.1.5T10. > > First, router 1 configurations. There are a number of > loopbacks,containing > the route addresses in question. > JMcL: Are any of the relevant routes being redistributed from RIP, or are the relevant bits pure OSPF? > router ospf 123 > log-adjacency-changes > area 0 range 100.100.0.0 255.255.240.0 > redistribute rip subnets route-map rip2ospf > network 99.99.99.1 0.0.0.0 area 51 > network 100.100.0.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.2.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.3.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.4.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.5.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.6.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 100.100.7.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 160.160.255.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 > > note the summary in the R1 routing table: > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > 100.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 2 masks > O 100.100.0.0/20 is a summary, 00:11:57, Null0 > > now observe router 2's table: > > 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 8 subnets JMcL: Interesting line above. You sure that's what it said? > O 100.100.0.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.1.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.2.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.3.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.4.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.5.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.6.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, > TokenRing0 > O 100.100.7.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, > TokenRing0 > 99.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > This has remained constant through several reconfigurations and > several ospf > process resets. > JMcL: I'm not quite clear on your setup. Pick me up if I go wrong here. R1 and R2 are connected by 160.160.255.0/24, yes? 160.160.255.0/24 is in area 0, yes? So R2 is also in area 0, yes? So why are you expecting that the backbone routes will have been summarised? You haven't left the backbone yet - you haven't crossed an area boundary (referring to the quote below). What happens if you connect R1 and R2 by a non-backbone link? > It also remain true even if on R1 I use a more generic network > 100.100.0.0 > 0.0.255.255 area 0 command. > > So > > I stand by my statement that even though you may be able to > enter the > commands, the fact is that you cannot summarize area 0 routes > on a cisco > router, at least not that I've been able to figure out.. My > position is > further supported by the Cisco documentation, which states "The > area range > command is used only with area border routers (ABRs). It is > used to > consolidate or summarize routes for an area. The result is that > a single > summary route is advertised to other areas by the ABR. Routing > information > is condensed at area boundaries." > Sorry - how does this say that you can't summarise in either direction? I don't see how it backs up your position. > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_r > /iprprt2/1rdospf.htm#xtocid4 > watch the wrap > > Of course, I am ready to learn something new, if you've got a > trick I have > yet to learn. > > > > > Why not summarise backbone routes for the same reasons as > summarising > > non-backbone routes - reduce routing tables, database sizes, > route change > > propagations etc? > > In regards to the wisdom of summarizing backbone routes in an >
Re: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
mm... OK, we'll chalk this one off as a failure to communicate. the original post called for "similar to ccbootcamp lab 5 , but how to summary those serial to other protocol ? area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on ABR either " which I took to mean summarizing area 0 routes to other area 0 routers and ultimately into an external protocol. which of course cannot be done. obviously, you are talking about summarizing area 0 routes into a non-zero area, which of course, does work just fine. -- www.chuckslongroad.info ""Jenny McLeod"" wrote in message news:200210290538.FAA14601@;groupstudy.com... > The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > > > ""Jenny McLeod"" wrote in message > > news:200210280429.EAA24675@;groupstudy.com... > > > The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > > [snipped] > > > > > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on > > ABR > > > > either > > > > > > > > > > > > > CL: well, area 0 range is an illegal command. you may be > > able > > > > to enter it, > > > > but it does nothing. the area range command is design to > > > > summarize non > > > > backbone routes into the backbone. if you think aout it, > > there > > > > is probably > > > > not a real good reaso for backbone routes to be summarized > > > > > > > > > > > JMcL: Since when?? > > > I use the area 0 range blah blah command (without the "area" > > at the end, > > if > > > that was supposed to be part of the command above), and it > > certainly > > doesn't > > > do nothing. As far as I've seen, it works in exactly the > > same way as area > > > anything else range blah blah. > > > > > > All right, Miss Smarty Pants. I don't know what IOS versions > > you use / have > > been using, but I have been through this song and dance with > > OSPF area 0 > > summarization, or lack thereof for a while now. I have yet to > > see it work. > > > > Seriously, Jen, you know I respect your wisdom and value your > > advice. I am > > absolutely certain that I have never successfuly summarized > > area 0 routes > > over a couple of years of lab rat living. The following is from > > my current > > study pod, and the IOS version is 12.1.5T10. > > > > First, router 1 configurations. There are a number of > > loopbacks,containing > > the route addresses in question. > > > JMcL: Are any of the relevant routes being redistributed from RIP, or are > the relevant bits pure OSPF? > > > router ospf 123 > > log-adjacency-changes > > area 0 range 100.100.0.0 255.255.240.0 > > redistribute rip subnets route-map rip2ospf > > network 99.99.99.1 0.0.0.0 area 51 > > network 100.100.0.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.2.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.3.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.4.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.5.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.6.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 100.100.7.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > network 160.160.255.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 > > > > note the summary in the R1 routing table: > > > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > > > 100.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 2 masks > > O 100.100.0.0/20 is a summary, 00:11:57, Null0 > > > > now observe router 2's table: > > > > 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 8 subnets > JMcL: Interesting line above. You sure that's what it said? > > O 100.100.0.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.1.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.2.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.3.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.4.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.5.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.6.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, > > TokenRing0 > > O 100.100.7.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, > > TokenRing0 > > 99.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > > > This has remained constant through several reconfigurations and > > several ospf > > process resets. > > > JMcL: I'm not quite clear on your setup. Pick me up if I go wrong here. > R1 and R2 are connected by 160.160.255.0/24, yes? > 160.160.255.0/24 is in area 0, yes? > So R2 is also in area 0, yes? > So why are you expecting that the backbone routes will have been > summarised? You haven't left the backbone yet - you haven't crossed an area > boundary (referring to the quote below). > What happens if you connect R1 and R2 by a non-backbone link? > > > It also remain true even if on R1 I use a more generic network > > 100.100.0.0 > > 0.0.255.255 area 0 command. > > > > So > > > > I stand by my statement that even though you may be able to > > enter the > > commands, the fact is that you cannot summarize area 0 routes > > on a cisco > > router, at least not that I've been able to figure out.. My > > position is > > further supported by the Cisco documentation, w
Re: OSPF point-to-multipoint 32 mask [7:56136]
Ahhh.. I was wondering if we were talking at cross purposes. It seemed like a very strange position for you to be taking otherwise! All is clear now. JMcL The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > mm... > > OK, we'll chalk this one off as a failure to communicate. > > the original post called for > > "similar to ccbootcamp lab 5 , but how to summary those serial > to other > protocol ? > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not working on ABR > either " > > which I took to mean summarizing area 0 routes to other area 0 > routers and > ultimately into an external protocol. which of course cannot be > done. > > obviously, you are talking about summarizing area 0 routes into > a non-zero > area, which of course, does work just fine. > > > -- > > www.chuckslongroad.info > > > > > ""Jenny McLeod"" wrote in message > news:200210290538.FAA14601@;groupstudy.com... > > The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > > > > > ""Jenny McLeod"" wrote in message > > > news:200210280429.EAA24675@;groupstudy.com... > > > > The Long and Winding Road wrote: > > > > [snipped] > > > > > > area 0 range 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 area not > working on > > > ABR > > > > > either > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CL: well, area 0 range is an illegal command. you may > be > > > able > > > > > to enter it, > > > > > but it does nothing. the area range command is design to > > > > > summarize non > > > > > backbone routes into the backbone. if you think aout it, > > > there > > > > > is probably > > > > > not a real good reaso for backbone routes to be > summarized > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JMcL: Since when?? > > > > I use the area 0 range blah blah command (without the > "area" > > > at the end, > > > if > > > > that was supposed to be part of the command above), and it > > > certainly > > > doesn't > > > > do nothing. As far as I've seen, it works in exactly the > > > same way as area > > > > anything else range blah blah. > > > > > > > > > All right, Miss Smarty Pants. I don't know what IOS versions > > > you use / have > > > been using, but I have been through this song and dance with > > > OSPF area 0 > > > summarization, or lack thereof for a while now. I have yet > to > > > see it work. > > > > > > Seriously, Jen, you know I respect your wisdom and value > your > > > advice. I am > > > absolutely certain that I have never successfuly summarized > > > area 0 routes > > > over a couple of years of lab rat living. The following is > from > > > my current > > > study pod, and the IOS version is 12.1.5T10. > > > > > > First, router 1 configurations. There are a number of > > > loopbacks,containing > > > the route addresses in question. > > > > > JMcL: Are any of the relevant routes being redistributed from > RIP, or are > > the relevant bits pure OSPF? > > > > > router ospf 123 > > > log-adjacency-changes > > > area 0 range 100.100.0.0 255.255.240.0 > > > redistribute rip subnets route-map rip2ospf > > > network 99.99.99.1 0.0.0.0 area 51 > > > network 100.100.0.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.2.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.3.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.4.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.5.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.6.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 100.100.7.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > > network 160.160.255.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 > > > > > > note the summary in the R1 routing table: > > > > > > Gateway of last resort is not set > > > > > > 100.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 2 masks > > > O 100.100.0.0/20 is a summary, 00:11:57, Null0 > > > > > > now observe router 2's table: > > > > > > 100.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 8 subnets > > JMcL: Interesting line above. You sure that's what it said? > > > O 100.100.0.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.1.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.2.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.3.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.4.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.5.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:53, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.6.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, > > > TokenRing0 > > > O 100.100.7.0 [110/26] via 160.160.255.1, 00:12:54, > > > TokenRing0 > > > 99.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets > > > > > > This has remained constant through several reconfigurations > and > > > several ospf > > > process resets. > > > > > JMcL: I'm not quite clear on your setup. Pick me up if I go > wrong here. > > R1 and R2 are connected by 160.160.255.0/24, yes? > > 160.160.255.0/24 is in area 0, yes? > > So R2 is also in area 0, yes? > > So why are you expecting that the backbone routes will have > been > > summarised? You haven't left the backbone yet - you haven't > crossed an > area > > boundary (referring to the quot
