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 create a loopback interface on R8 and then assign it to a "dummy" OSPF area. This allows you to use the area range command to summarize the /28 routes into a /27. Another option that someone posted was to use two OSPF processes and redistribute one into the other and use the summary-address command. I thought that Chuck's Follies question was how to get shorter-mask routes from OSPF into IGRP. Using your example, try making the OSPF domain /27 and the IGRP domain /28. That makes things much more difficult! I've found two ways to handle this and I don't like either one, to be honest. I'm anxiously awaiting Chuck's answer because this is really bugging me. There ought to be an easier way. However, in the real world we wouldn't have the restrictions of the lab. John >>> "Richard Botham" 12/18/01 8:18:00 AM >>> 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 network 172.168.10.64/27 r1/r8 network 172.168.10.16/27 r1/r8 tunnel 172.168.11.0/27 r8 network 172.168.10.32/28 I tried all combinations of /27 & /28 masks on the tunnel to try and get the /27 routes into the table on r1 but with no joy. Look at this form debug ip igrp trans 04:49:59: IGRP: sending update to 255.255.255.255 via Tunnel0 (172.168.11.1) 04:49:59: subnet 172.168.10.32, metric=6882 So the route appears to be advertised out of tunnel0 towards r1 as you would expect , because the mask is the same. However the route never appears in the routing table on r1 although it has an interface using a /27 ( tunnel ) You do not see r1 receiving the /27 route I would like to hear your thoughts as I cannot think of another way to get around this one. Best regards Richard Botham Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29488&t=29473 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
