ent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore)
Subject: RE: RE: That Friday Follies Question... [7:29473]
Excellent! That perfectly explains the behavior we were experiencing.
I was only able to make this work when the tunnel was in the same major
network. When I mad
Excellent! That perfectly explains the behavior we were experiencing.
I was only able to make this work when the tunnel was in the same major
network. When I made the tunnel a part of a different major net, things
got a little weird.
You're correct, in the scenario I've been playing with IGRP
Warning, this is a bit longish...I'd be interested in feedback to see if
anyone agrees/disagrees, finds this at all helpful, etc. Part of this
exercise is to make sure I've got this straight in my head.
Here's a CCO link that may help:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/5.html
The scenario y
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>John Neiberger
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:12 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: RE: That Friday Follies Question... [7:29473]
>
>
>I thought I had discovered a way to do this but it didn't work,
>either. It was a v
people who coded this stuff.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: That Friday Follies Question... [7:29473]
I thought I had discovered a way to do this
ill not
> accept
> the summary /16 if all the interfaces in its domain are some
other
> prefix.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of
> c1sc0k1d
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:02 PM
&
Of
> John Neiberger
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: That Friday Follies Question... [7:29473]
>
>
> In my testing I was never able to get secondary interfaces to
work
> properly. IGRP would advertise over one or the othe
, December 18, 2001 1:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: That Friday Follies Question... [7:29473]
Hmmm... interesting. I'll give it a go in my lab and let you know what
happens. I'm looking forwards to Chucks answer as well.
The k1d
""John Neiberger"" wro
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: That Friday Follies Question... [7:29473]
In my testing I was never able to get secondary interfaces to work
properly. IGRP would adve
Hmmm... interesting. I'll give it a go in my lab and let you know what
happens. I'm looking forwards to Chucks answer as well.
The k1d
""John Neiberger"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In my testing I was never able to get secondary interfaces to work
> prop
In my testing I was never able to get secondary interfaces to work
properly. IGRP would advertise over one or the other, but not both, and
I wasn't able to figure out how it picked which one to use. I've
configured slightly different scenarios from scratch two or three times
and I could never ma
AFAIK, there is only one way to summarize with rip and igrp and that is by
creating a static and redistributing the static. Since that is not possible
and since we cannot use the default network command we must have an ospf
interface that shares the /27 igrp network to get routes to pass. That
c
The R1/R8 Tunnel needs to be a /28 since you're trying to get /28 routes
into the IGRP domain. However, since you're going from a longer-match
mask to a shorter-mask, you don't need to use this method. It will work
but you could also use a couple of the other methods posted.
First, you could cr
John,
Thanks for wrecking my weekend too..
I tried to get this to work using the tunnel method and the secondary
addressing method but with no success.
My lab looks look like this
r4--(igrp/27)--r2--(igrp/27)--r1--(igrp /27)--r8--(ospf /28)
interfaces
r4/r2 network 172.168.10.80/27
r2/r1 n
14 matches
Mail list logo
