Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]

2001-08-22 Thread Edmondson, Dorothy M
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

RE: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]

2001-08-22 Thread Juliano Moises da Luz
: 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

Re: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]

2001-08-22 Thread Peter Van Oene
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

RE: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]

2001-08-22 Thread YY
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

Re: Loopback0 with Mask of 255.255.255.255 ?? [7:16796]

2001-08-22 Thread Circusnuts
- 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