did you disable split horizon? I can't think of why it should work, but a couple of weeks ago we had a thread on secondary addresses with RIP and the only way to get that one to work was by disabling split horizon on the interfaces where the secondaries appeared.
Chuck -----Original Message----- 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 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 make secondary IP addresses work. John >>> "c1sc0k1d" 12/18/01 12:25:29 PM >>> 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 could be performed with secondary addresses or a tunnel interface (or a frame subinterface). I think for igrp to advertise on the secondary address method, it also needs to be configured to advertised on the primary, although I could be mistaken. I know it's that way for eigrp. The k1d ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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=29591&t=29473 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
