RE: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
RIP v1 can optionally support host routes ( /32 ) according to the RFC (ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1058.txt ) this is an optional implementation. Cisco has chosen to support host routes, if my own experiments are accurate. You might want to try a couple of scenarios to verify. One more thing to keep in mind. By default, Cisco routers listen for RIPv2 as well as RIPv1. A Cisco router will by default send only version 1. Therefore it is possible for variable length masks to appear in the routing table of a RIPv1 router. They will not be advertised back out. HTH Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jerry Seven Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] Hi Group, In this simple environment: 172.10.12.0/25 R1R2 I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network 172.10.11.0/28 directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not 172.10.11.0/28. I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 route is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP. The versions are all 12.0. Thanks, Jerry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7322&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
""Doug Lockwood"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just a thought. Are you really running rip V1 or are you running Rip V2 in > compatibly mode. > > The first config would look like: > > Router Rip > Net 172.10.0.0 > > The second would look like: > > Router rip > version 1 > net 172.10.0.0 Doug I think you are right but dont forget that RIP ver 1 doesnt support Variable Subnetting as oppossed to RIP ver 2 that does. Jerry's subnets are : 172.10.12.0/25 172.10.11.0/28 and RIP v1 distributes 172.10.0.1/32 only. HTH George Yiannibas MCSE CCNA Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7043&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
The routers I tested were in version 12.1T or 12.1E and also 12.0(1)T, I runs V1, for that's the default RIP config, to make sure, I added version 1 but no luck. After sent out the mail I tested another 1600 which runs 12.0(0.20)T, this guys runs differently -- doesn't propagate its loopback address, sounds like a IOS change in 12.X. Thanks, Jerry - Original Message - From: "Circusnuts" To: "Jerry Seven" ; Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] > The /32 Subnet Mask in your Show IP Route, is OSPF earmarking the loopbacks. > I believe it's 12.1 where this goes away, though I do not know what the > advantage would be. > > Phil > > - Original Message - > From: Jerry Seven > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:27 PM > Subject: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] > > > > Hi Group, > > > > In this simple environment: > > > >172.10.12.0/25 > > R1R2 > > > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, > on > > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network > 172.10.11.0/28 > > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but > not > > 172.10.11.0/28. > > > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 > route > > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly > know > > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by > RIP. > > > > The versions are all 12.0. > > > > Thanks, > > Jerry _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7023&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Are you running ppp and getting a "peer neighbor-route" of the IP on the other end... This can be turned off by "no peer neighbor-route" on the interface, and having ppp re-negotiate. Thanks -Nate "Jerry Seven" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi Group, > > In this simple environment: > >172.10.12.0/25 > R1R2 > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network 172.10.11.0/28 > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not > 172.10.11.0/28. > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 route > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP. > > The versions are all 12.0. > > Thanks, > Jerry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7016&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Just a thought. Are you really running rip V1 or are you running Rip V2 in compatibly mode. The first config would look like: Router Rip Net 172.10.0.0 The second would look like: Router rip version 1 net 172.10.0.0 Just a thought. Doug Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7014&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
The /32 Subnet Mask in your Show IP Route, is OSPF earmarking the loopbacks. I believe it's 12.1 where this goes away, though I do not know what the advantage would be. Phil - Original Message - From: Jerry Seven To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:27 PM Subject: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] > Hi Group, > > In this simple environment: > >172.10.12.0/25 > R1R2 > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network 172.10.11.0/28 > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not > 172.10.11.0/28. > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 route > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP. > > The versions are all 12.0. > > Thanks, > Jerry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7011&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
