Hello All,
I have a question about route summarization. I was reading over the
material from Cisco on the matter, I was wondering; or actually
assuming. If you want to have route summarization in place to you need
continuos network numbers? I know that the docs. said you would send
Steven Aiello wrote:
Hello All,
I have a question about route summarization. I was reading
over the
material from Cisco on the matter, I was wondering; or actually
assuming. If you want to have route summarization in place to
you need
continuos network numbers? I know
Steve
The missing one if advertised with smaller block will take effect.
Rgds,
Kiran
From: Steven Aiello
Reply-To: Steven Aiello
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Route Summarization [7:62347]
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:15:20 GMT
Hello All,
I have a question about route summarization. I
Why can't you use the summary-address on the ASBRs. Is there some
restriction?
Jay Greenberg wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hello group,
I seem to have a problem with OSPF external LSA summarization. I have
an Ethernet segment in area 4. There are
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hello group,
I seem to have a problem with OSPF external LSA summarization. I have
an Ethernet segment in area 4. There are 2 ASBRs (RAS Gear), and 1 ABR
(the router connected to my backbone). Suppose for now, that ASBR1 is
injecting 192.168.0.1/32 into OSPF as a
rnal LSA summarization. I have
an Ethernet segment in area 4. There are 2 ASBRs (RAS Gear), and 1 ABR
(the router connected to my backbone). Suppose for now, that ASBR1 is
injecting 192.168.0.1/32 into OSPF as an E2 LSA, and ASBR2 is injecting
192.168.0.128/25 into OSPF as an E2 LSA. I wo
,
-Mark
Jay Greenberg wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hello group,
I seem to have a problem with OSPF external LSA summarization. I have
an Ethernet segment in area 4. There are 2 ASBRs (RAS Gear), and 1 ABR
(the router connected to my
Hello group,
I seem to have a problem with OSPF external LSA summarization. I have
an Ethernet segment in area 4. There are 2 ASBRs (RAS Gear), and 1 ABR
(the router connected to my backbone). Suppose for now, that ASBR1 is
injecting 192.168.0.1/32 into OSPF as an E2 LSA, and ASBR2
-
From: Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
ah, but that is old world classful thinking.
as per RFC 1812, effectively there is no such thing as subnet zero any
longer. per that RFC, all
on it, I suspect that even on Cisco tests,
there would not be question about summarization where the subnet zero, all
ones subnet count ( 2^n-2) would be the right answer. ( although I would not
be surprised to see this in some of the study materials, given what I know
about how quality control
. 2^n-2, that only one
of them would be available.
Thanks
Larry
-Original Message-
From: Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
Larry, I'm only beating this dead horse
Larry
-Original Message-
From: Dain Deutschman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 4:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
Hey everyone,
Thanks for all of your help. I have decided that 16 must be correct since
stuff to be
removed from production.
hhhm. a brief look through ARIN seems to indicate that assignments
are not made out of subnet zero space
but that is still a different question. a summarization produces a single
route where several existed before. if you see a summary 192.1.0.0/16, why
learning resource. Thanks
everyone. Dain.
Dain Deutschman wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I'm confused about a practice question for BSCN that I came across:
Your routing tables are getting very large and you need to configure route
summarization. How many
For a Cisco test the actuall answer would be 14. Unfortunately, for us, they
don't take subnet zero into consideration for tests. So, if you have that
question on the test answer 14, for the real-world it's 16. In other words,
the answer to the BSCN question is wrong.
Carl
Message Posted at:
I say 8. 2 to the power of 4
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=48389t=48367
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
Firstly, 2 to the power of 4 is 16 (2x2x2x2).
Secondly, regarding Carl's post, would the answer be 14? I'm not sure the
subnet-zero comes into play with CIDR. I was under the impression it was
only relevant to subnetting as opposed to summarizing. Does anyone know for
sure?
I say 8. 2 to
Bob Timmons wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Secondly, regarding Carl's post, would the answer be 14? I'm not sure the
subnet-zero comes into play with CIDR. I was under the impression it was
only relevant to subnetting as opposed to summarizing. Does anyone
One of the choices in the question was 16but 14 was not a choice. Could
it be that since 14 was not a choice that 8 was the closest thing since 16
is possibly wrong because of the 0 subnet? This seems a little off the wall
to me butsometimes those cisco questions are off the wall. Dain.
Of
Bob Timmons
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
Firstly, 2 to the power of 4 is 16 (2x2x2x2).
Secondly, regarding Carl's post, would the answer be 14? I'm not sure the
subnet-zero comes into play with CIDR. I
If the choices are either 8 or 16, I'd definitely go with 16.
192.168.0.0/20 would be (for example):
192.168.0.1 to 192.168.15.254
Which is 16 total subnets.
One of the choices in the question was 16but 14 was not a choice.
Could
it be that since 14 was not a choice that 8 was the
I was thinking of subnetting and not summarization, it was a little late.
16, not 14, is correct.
Carl
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=48405t=48367
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http
Dain Deutschman wrote:
One of the choices in the question was 16but 14 was not a
choice. Could
it be that since 14 was not a choice that 8 was the closest
thing since 16
is possibly wrong because of the 0 subnet? This seems a little
off the wall
to me butsometimes those cisco
ah come on, guys, now you're all trying to outsmart yourselves.
nothing in the RFC's regarding CIDR / summarization mentions a subnet zero
why should it? that would defeat the purpose of CIDR/summarization.
Dain Deutschman wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dain,
Just out of curiosity, who was the author of the test question? When I was
studying for my CCNP I ran into several poorly written questions and others,
like this one, that were just plain wrong.
Also, are the people that think that 2 to the power of 4 equals 8 the same
people that write
]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
Wow. According to my binary math, 4 bits = 16 combinations.
1 bit = 2 combinations (2^1 = 2)
2 bits = 4 combinations (2^2 = 4)
3 bits = 8 combinations (2^3 = 8)
4 bits = 16 combinations (2^4 = 16)
Now. when converting from binary
I'm confused about a practice question for BSCN that I came across:
Your routing tables are getting very large and you need to configure route
summarization. How many class C internet addresses can you summarize with a
/20 CIDR block?
Answer: 8
Would it not be 16? Where am I going wrong
I would say 16 as well.
Mike W.
Dain Deutschman wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I'm confused about a practice question for BSCN that I came across:
Your routing tables are getting very large and you need to configure route
summarization. How many
16 is the correct answer.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Dain Deutschman
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
I'm confused about a practice question for BSCN that I
re route
summarization. How many class C internet addresses can you summarize with
a
/20 CIDR block?
Answer: 8
Would it not be 16? Where am I going wrong?
--
Dain Deutschman
CNA, MCP, CCNA
Data Communications Manager
New Star Sales and Service, Inc.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groups
I would say 8 is correct. 4 bits make 8 combinations.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Michael L. Williams
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
I would say 16
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Michael L. Williams
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
I would say 16 as well.
Mike W.
Dain Deutschman wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTE
charts and bitswapping charts instead of taking an hour and learning how
binary actually works... geez)
Mike W.
- Original Message -
From: Andy Hoang
To: Michael L. Williams ;
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:51 PM
Subject: RE: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
I would say 8
08, 2002 10:51 PM
Subject: RE: Class C summarization question [7:48367]
I would say 8 is correct. 4 bits make 8 combinations.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Michael L. Williams
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:15 PM
To: [EMAIL P
When specifying the summary address, you need to use the network address of
the summarization
The address you specified is within the summary, its just not the network
address.
Appling the mask against your address :
0010=32
1100=192
-
00xx=0
Remember 1's we care about, 0
for summarization?
If we use this example:
172.20.8.0/22 1000 8
172.20.12.0/22 1100 12
^Bit boundary=248
1000 248
1000 8 subnet
1000 248 mask
1000 8 subnet
I think I see now.If you
If I follow what you are saying, then yes, whatever the AND'ing process of
the subnet mask and the address space is what your summarization is.
Just AND your subnet mask and network statement together. That will give you
your summarization range.
Case in point,
137.20.1.32
255.255.255.192
Great explaination. I just had issues with not being able to use my .32
network address but now I see why.I am taking the road to CCIE very
carefully and try to understand exactly why things are the way they are.
That is why I love working on the networking end of things; There is a
definitive
I am trying to do a lab that needs a inter-area ospf summary address
configured
I have two loopbacks 137.20.1.17/28 and 137.20.1.33/28. These are then of
course on networks 137.20.1.16 and 137.20.1.32. Taking the last octet of the
subnets into binary we have:
16= 0001
32= 0010
Acording
I am trying to do a lab that needs a inter-area ospf summary address
configured
I have two loopbacks 137.20.1.17/28 and 137.20.1.33/28. These are then of
course on networks 137.20.1.16 and 137.20.1.32. Taking the last octet of the
subnets into binary we have:
16= 0001
32= 0010
Michal Witte
Try using area 11 range 137.20.1.0 255.255.255.192 instead.
Hope that works.
Schwantz
Michael Witte wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I am trying to do a lab that needs a inter-area ospf summary address
configured
I have two loopbacks
Wonder if anyone has ever tried this senario:
Router A run both OSPF and IGRP which redistribute
into each other. Router R run IGRP with router A.
The direct link between A (Ethernet 0) B (Ethernet 0)
is /24 (172.16.100.0/24 -IGRP).
On router A, there are a prefix with /22 mask which
run
Create a static route on B which points all 172.16.200.0 traffic to A and
eliminate the summary route on A.
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
HUNG NGUYEN wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Wonder if anyone has ever tried this senario:
Router A run both OSPF and IGRP which
#xtocid1
Nigel
- Original Message -
From: John Neiberger
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:30 AM
Subject: Summarization?? What's that? (bug report)
While attempting to summarize some prefixes in BGP I got the
following:
R3#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End
- Original Message -
From: John Neiberger
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:30 AM
Subject: Summarization?? What's that? (bug report)
While attempting to summarize some prefixes in BGP I got the
following:
R3#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with
CNTL/Z
, March 03, 2002 12:30 AM
Subject: Summarization?? What's that? (bug report)
While attempting to summarize some prefixes in BGP I got
the
following:
R3#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with
CNTL/Z.
R3(config)#router bgp 2010
R3(config-router
Hi All,
I am trying to get route sumarization working with NLSP.
I have r1 that has networks as follows:
Fa0/0 ipx net aaa1
Fa0/1 ipx net aaa2
I have enabled route-aggregation under NLSP but cannot figure out the acl to
get only a summary of ' aaa ' advertised to r2 and not aaa1 and
. This is not the place to enforce network policy (ACLs, QOS,
manual summarization, etc.).
We all love the network 10.0.0.0/8; it gives us great freedom and allows
networks to be built without concern for addressing efficiency. There are
some downsides to this though and you've found one. You've been dealt
Hello Ben, thanks for your detailed answer.
I'm afraid I have no idea what happened but I'm think that it wasn't a
problem with CPU unless summarization is a very intensive cpu process(I
don't know if it is).
We have a hub-and-spoke topology. Four 7500 (2 7513 and 2 7507) for backbone
(ATM
summarization?
David
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=31766t=31766
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
all of the steps that you'd have to go through for a
large-scale OSPF installation.
Obviously, this thought is very wrong.
I'm guessing that you need to do manual summarization on 200 interfaces per
box is because you don't have clearly-defined summarization points in the
network - that's
in
the routing table thus preventing the loops.
Thats my understanding at any rate.
Experts please advise if I am mistaken
Luck to All
Matt Smith
- Original Message -
From: Jaspreet Bhatia
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 7:51 PM
Subject: OSPF Summarization
While doing OSPF
Hi,
When configuring summary address on eigrp or ospf,
a static address for the summary address pointing to the null interface
would be added
(or I am talked to add the static address in ospf).
I don't understand the reason of the static address.
Any way to test the situation that shows the
The reason for this null interface route is to prevent routing loops.
For example, let's say there are two ASes: AS1 and AS2
AS1 - 10.0.0.0/24;
10.0.1.0/24;
10.0.0.0/23 summary route advertising to AS2
default route pointing to AS2
AS2 - 20.0.0.0/24;
20.0.1.0/24;
Thank you very much.
Very clear.
-Original Message-
From: Blanco Lam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Question : Summarization - Routing [7:25923]
The reason for this null interface route is to prevent routing loops
Okay, this doesn't quite qualify as a trick question but I'm having
trouble finding the answer. I hope it's not too obvious or I'll be
embarrassed. :-) While working on one of the Fatkid's labs I see the
following in the Hints sections:
3. There are two built in OSPF methods to summarize
Here's my guess. I've included the first two for clarity.
1. Inter-area route summarization with commands of the form
area 1 range 10.1.2.0 255.255.224.0
2. External route summarization with commands of the form
summary-address 10.1.2.0 225.255.224.0
3. Static route of the form
ip
sort of incantation.
Thanks,
John
Jonathan Hays 10/22/01 9:01:49 AM
Here's my guess. I've included the first two for clarity.
1. Inter-area route summarization with commands of the form
area 1 range 10.1.2.0 255.255.224.0
2. External route summarization with commands of the form
: OSPF Route Summarization Trick Question [7:23771]
Okay, this doesn't quite qualify as a trick question but I'm having
trouble finding the answer. I hope it's not too obvious or I'll be
embarrassed. :-) While working on one of the Fatkid's labs I see
the
following in the Hints sections:
3
-
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OSPF Route Summarization Trick Question [7:23771]
Yep, distribute-lists could work in conjuction with Jonathan's
suggestion of redistributing a static route. I wanted
In this particular lab static routes were forbidden. It was an OSPF lab
and one of the instructions was to configure summarization between
areas. The Hints section was there to prompt us on different ways this
might be accomplished. Since it's a training lab they're trying to make
us think
summarization is as follows:
172.21.136.0/24 and 172.21.143.0/24 can be summarized as: ??
We both came to the same conclusion:
^
172.21.136.0 - 10101100.00010101.10001000.
172.21.143.0 - 10101100.00010101.1000.
summarization question [7:19970]
To determine whether the question you have is right or wrong, take
172.21.134.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses does
this mask give you?
172.21.128.0 through 172.21.135.255. Now does that represent the range of
IP addresses you've been asked
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
Cisco wrong? Perish the thought!!! ;-
seeing as 134 is 1110, and is in no way relevant here, I would suggest
that the lazy no good subcontractor that Cisco hired to write /
proof / tech
review / whatever is wrong
cat's outta da bag now. but i'm sure your name will be there (Technical
Editor, Chuck Larrieu, CCIE 82**) on the front of every text.
;-)
-e-
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Larrieu
To:
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:11 AM
Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970
I do think I was misunderstood here.
1. Classless addressing is the worldwide standard no matter what
Cisco says, and should be the default approach to address assignment.
2. Summarization/aggregation/supernetting should be used WHEN POSSIBLE,
but controlled exceptions can
but you can't make her
think.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
GB
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 5:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just how important is route summarization in typical
[7:14854]
Just ignore him DJ, what he's trying
At 11:51 PM 8/3/2001 -0400, nrf wrote:
OK all - well, I'd like to wrap up my original post .For those who don't
know, I was the person who originally started this post on summarization,
and it has apparently taken a life of its own (I cringed when I first
started this thread because I had
wouldn't*
want to summarize. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to
implement summarization everywhere possible, but is there are specific
downside to summarizing everywhere you can?
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=1495
in the case of a hub and spoke network, where implementing summarization on
the spokes (or rather, advertising of summaries out the interfaces of the
hub) yields extra configuration work with no real benefit?
in a small network, no matter what the topology, where the number of
routes is minimal
She has a way of doing that =)
Mike W.
nrf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Thank you Priscilla. You said it better than I ever could. I guess this
is
why you're a famous author and I'm not.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=14745t=14745
My biggest problem with summarization so far:
Ring-Ring-Ring - my cellphone goes off at 3AM, I'm rudely awakened and
blearily reach for it:
Hello? - I say weakly
Hey boss, I'm on the office router, and I can't see all the routes!!!
Well, that's probably because I summarized it, and you can
and you can't use
summarization because only you, the delhi-lama and elvs could ever
understand it.
What does this have to do with the original question.
Why don't you just type up a spread sheet and paste it on the side of the
router, they will never know if the routes are summarized.
Thi
As far as the summarization vs. supernetting thing - here goes.
Summarization is a general idea where several more specific routes are
coupled - aggregated if you will - into a less general route with a shorter
subnet mask. This can be (but does not have to be) performed by supernetting
, which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you, Howard. All the best practices I have ever
learned have
stated that route summarization should be avoided, and, if not
possible, at
least minimized. I think unless you have a large network with
multiple AS's,
route summarization should only
Of
GB
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 5:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just how important is route summarization in typical
[7:14854]
Just ignore him DJ, what he's trying to do is just retain his job security
as head idiot. By telling his management that he is surrounded by a bunch
as possible from this guy...
- Original Message -
From: Donald B Johnson jr
To:
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 2:38 PM
Subject: Fw: Just how important is route summarization in typical
[7:14842]
I dont think this guy is stable.
And it is still a moronic discussion. Who cares that he
Mike, yours is about the best message in this thread to use as a start point
for some random thoughts.
seems to me that there are architectures and network sizes that do and do
not lend themselves to summarization.
for example, in the typical small network hub and spoke setup, it's
questionable
]
Subject: Re: Just how important is route summarization in typical
[7:14814]
My biggest problem with summarization so far:
Ring-Ring-Ring - my cellphone goes off at 3AM, I'm rudely awakened and
blearily reach for it:
Hello? - I say weakly
Hey boss, I'm on the office router, and I can't see
Its nothing but morons for a fifty mile radius from you, and you can't use
summarization because only you, the delhi-lama and elvs could ever
understand it.
What does this have to do with the original question.
Why don't you just type up a spread sheet and paste it on the side of the
router
are so
unstable and then remedying it rather than engaging in summarization in
order to mask the instability.
But the summarization localizes the instability and speeds the time
to find the links that are flapping.
If I cut myself, and the wound stops bleeding, I am still likely to
put a dressing
out
why your routes are so
unstable and then remedying it rather than engaging
in summarization in
order to mask the instability.
There is no question begged. You make it sound like
summarization is being used as a method to deal with a
crisis. It is most emphatically
---
nrf @groupstudy.com on 02/08/2001 02:42:45 pm
Please respond to nrf
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Just how important is route summarization in typical enterprise
[7:14601]
Hey all. I'm going to risk starting a flame war
Hey all. I'm going to risk starting a flame war by asking the following:
A bit more precision. You have to consider more than one kind of
performance. One is route lookup in the fast forwarding path, and
the other is changing the routing table (possibly in the same
processor that does
Hey all. I'm going to risk starting a flame war by asking the following:
I've been struck by just how much importance Cisco courseware places on
route summarization. For example, every student who goes through CCNP-level
courseware learns about all the various kinds of summarization - OSPF
gotten to the point
that Cisco-trained
personnel treat summarization like the holy grail,
and they go around trying
to use summarization techniques wherever they can.
A network always benefits from the consistent
application of design goals. Summarization scales
well because of the architecture
Hey all. I'm going to risk starting a flame war by asking the following:
I've been struck by just how much importance Cisco courseware places on
route summarization. For example, every student who goes through CCNP-level
courseware learns about all the various kinds of summarization - OSPF
are so
unstable and then remedying it rather than engaging in summarization in
order to mask the instability.
Like I said previously, I completely agree that summarization is indeed very
useful in large networks like NSP/ISP's or large enterprises (1000+ routes),
for many reasons (better lookup
---
Jeongwoo Park @groupstudy.com on 22/06/2001 06:37:27 am
Please respond to Jeongwoo Park
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: ospf summarization !! [7:9418]
Hi all
I know that we can summarize routes from non-backbone area to backbone
area
Hi all
I know that we can summarize routes from non-backbone area to backbone area.
But could we do the other way around?
Jeongwoo
JP
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=9418t=9418
--
FAQ, list archives, and
IIRC, stub areas only receive inter-area summary routes and default routes?
-Ej
-Original Message-
From: Jeongwoo Park [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ospf summarization !! [7:9418]
Hi all
I know that we can summarize
geez, that's a lot of questions.
my attempts at answers in-line
- Original Message -
From: Murphy, Brennan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:48 PM
Subject: Generic Summarization Planning Question [7:2952]
I am curious about best practices concerning subnetting a class B address
. To me it looks
like it should be 15.
Thanks,
Steve
There's a widespread and unfortunate belief that summarization is
OK if it includes a list of addresses, even if it picks up addresses
not included in the list. True, you can probably get away with that
in many enterprise situations, bu
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Route Summarization [7:1794]
I want to summarize three addresses within an OSPF area:
10.2.1.0/24
10.2.2.0/24
10.2.3.0/24
Converting to binary, I see the 15th bit is the highest order bit the three
addresses have in common. From that I see the summary address
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Stephen Alston
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Route Summarization [7:1794]
I want to summarize three addresses within an OSPF area:
10.2.1.0/24
10.2.2.0/24
10.2.3.0/24
Co
Actually, the 22nd bit is the highest common bit.
10.2.0001.0
10.2.0010.0
10.2.0011.0
The longest summary for this would be 10.2.0.0 /22
Summarizing the range 10.2.0.0 thru 10.2.3.255
Stephen Alston wrote:
I want to summarize three addresses within an OSPF area:
10.2.1.0/24
is 16bits. To me it looks
like it should be 15.
Thanks,
Steve
There's a widespread and unfortunate belief that summarization is
OK if it includes a list of addresses, even if it picks up addresses
not included in the list. True, you can probably get away with that
in many enterprise situations
I want to summarize three addresses within an OSPF area:
10.2.1.0/24
10.2.2.0/24
10.2.3.0/24
Converting to binary, I see the 15th bit is the highest order bit the three
addresses have in common. From that I see the summary address is 10.2.0.0.
What I don't understand is why the subnet mask is
hi all:
I need to know
1.how to summarize 1.1.0.0/16,1.3.0.0/16,1.0.3.0/23 and 1.0.16.0/23
2.when troublrshooting a serial interface you encounter the statement
loop-up on the interface ,what does this mean.
Thanks in Advance.
Almazi
CCNP
Without summarizing space outside of these blocks you
can't. Readdressing is the next best option.
--- Almazi Rashid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi all:
I need to know
1.how to summarize 1.1.0.0/16,1.3.0.0/16,1.0.3.0/23
and 1.0.16.0/23
2.when troublrshooting a serial interface you
encounter
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
