Sure, I'll try that but I don't see why it should matter. As I understand
it, ip classless affects routing table lookups only and it doesn't care how
those routes were installed into the table.
Although, given this behavior, my assumption might be wrong.
Thanks,
John
> John,
> Interesting. I think this is due to OSPF, not redistribution problem.
Can you try running RIP instead of OSPF ?
>
> Cheers,
> YY
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> John Neiberger
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 5:28 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: IP Classless Revisited (this is just odd...)
>
>
> Ok, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.... Or
should
> I say, just when I thought I understood the behavior of 'ip classess' and
> 'no ip classless'.... Let me summarize my lab setup.
>
> RouterA-----RouterB------RouterC
>
> Pretty simple. AtoB is 10.1.1.0/24, BtoA is 10.1.2.0/24. OSPF is
running
> on both links. 'ip classless' is on A and C, but not B initially. On B
I
> see these routes:
>
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets
> C 10.1.2.0 is directly connected, Serial1
> C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0
>
> That's what I expect to see. Then I add a default route on B, 'ip route
> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.1.1.2'. With no ip classless configured, any packets
to
> unknown subnets of 10.0.0.0/8 should be dropped. I tested it and that is
> the case. With 'ip classless' configured, and unknown packets regardless
of
> major network get routed to 10.1.1.2.
>
> Now here is what I don't understand. Let's turn off ip classless on B
> again, then go to Router C and add a default route to null0 and
> default-information originate to the ospf process. I now see this in
router
> B:
>
> 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets
> C 10.1.2.0 is directly connected, Serial1
> C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0
> O*E2 0.0.0.0/0 [110/1] via 10.1.2.2, 00:06:38, Serial1
>
> There is indeed a default route. With no ip classless configured, I
would
> expect the same behavior as before. If I were to ping 10.5.5.5 the
packets
> should be unroutable, but they're not! They get routed to the default
route
> whether or not ip classless is configured.
>
> Why is a default route learned through a routing protocol treated
> differently than a manually configured default route? I went through
this
> entire process twice and I just don't understand the behavior.
>
> What am I missing? I know it's going to be something obvious, but I
don't
> see it yet.
>
> Ok, I just now tried this: with the ospf external default route still in
> the routing table, I pinged 10.5.5.5 and it took the default route. Then
I
> manually added a default static route and the destination became
unroutable
> due to 'no ip classless' being configured. Removing the static default
it
> becomes routable again.
>
> Weird. What's going on?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> 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]
_______________________________________________________
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]
