ok, I just telnetted into the lab and the routers I'm working with for this
scenario have 12.0.10
thanks
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louie Belt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'John Neiberger'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 December, 2000 19:29
Subject: RE: EIGRP
> You can specify an inverse mask in IOS version 12.1
>
> LAB
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> John Neiberger
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 5:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EIGRP
>
>
> The 'network' statement in EIGRP is classful and accepts only the network
> number with no mask. You cannot specify subnets in the network statement,
> as all subnet masks fall on classful boundaries.
>
> In your case, "network 200.1.1.0" is all that you can enter. By default,
> any interface in the 200.1.1.0/24 subnet would participate in EIGRP,
> regardless of that interface's actual subnet mask.
>
> 'ip classless' and 'ip subnet-zero' have no bearing on this. EIGRP is
> classless, but the network statement itself is classful. I have no idea
> why.
>
> Remember that in EIGRP, the network statement specifies which interfaces
> participate in routing, not which networks are advertised.
>
> Let's say you have two interfaces, 200.1.1.1/29 and 200.1.1.9/29. If your
> network statement is 'network 200.1.1.0', then both of those interfaces
will
> participate, but the actual /29 networks will be advertised, just as you
> would expect.
>
> HTH,
> John
>
> > Group,
> >
> > In the lab again looking at a scenario.
> >
> > At first, I configured a transit link with a /24 mask.
> >
> > Later I thought - gee that's going to be a /29 or /30 in real life so I
> went
> > to change it.
> >
> > However, the router wouldn't accept "network 200.1.1.0 0.0.0.7" under
> > "router eigrp 10". It fails with the caret pointing at the first zero
in
> > the wildcard mask.
> >
> > doing a "?" after "network 200.1.1.0" just comes up with a <cr>.
> >
> > However, on CCO I see examples of both statements - some with the mask
> > others without.
> >
> > Has the behavior of EIGRP changed lately even so that CCO has
conflicting
> > examples or am I missing some connection?
> >
> > All routers have ip classless and ip subnet-zero configured.
> >
> > By the way, my lab scenario has OSPF redistributing the EIGRP. Looking
at
> an
> > upstream routing table it shows the EIGRP network as a /29 even though
> there
> > is no "mask" in the statement.
> >
> > So what am I missing?
> >
> > Kevin Wigle
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
