RIP v1 can optionally support host routes ( /32 ) according to the RFC
(ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1058.txt ) this is an optional
implementation. Cisco has chosen to support host routes, if my own
experiments are accurate. You might want to try a couple of scenarios to
verify.
One more thing to keep in mind. By default, Cisco routers listen for RIPv2
as well as RIPv1. A Cisco router will by default send only version 1.
Therefore it is possible for variable length masks to appear in the routing
table of a RIPv1 router. They will not be advertised back out.
HTH
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Jerry Seven
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 3:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Hi Group,
In this simple environment:
172.10.12.0/25
R1----------------------------R2
I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on
R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network
172.10.11.0/28
directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not
172.10.11.0/28.
I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32
route
is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know
the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask.
I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also
redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP.
The versions are all 12.0.
Thanks,
Jerry
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7322&t=7010
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
