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
: 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
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
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
-
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
5 matches
Mail list logo