Hmm, ny take is this
Cidr implies networks with non classful netmasks
vlsm is dividing a netblock into uneven chunks, like say a /24 int a /25
and 2 /26s.
Brian
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Chuck wrote:
> what gets me is how Cisco says they support CIDR in their implementation of
> RIPv2, and yet CIDR routes are not advertised natively. You have to F*****G
> redistribute CIDR routes into RIPv2 before they will be advertised. Exactly
> what good is that?
>
> Oh, and boo to CCO for the absolute lack of any information on this.
>
>
> ""Pierre-Alex Guanel"" wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].;
> > Ok, you win :)
> >
> > Pierre-Alex
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Chuck
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:32 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: VLSM and CIDR [7:37031]
> >
> >
> > well, to continue to beat this dead horse ( like anyone cares about RIPv2
> > CIDR anyway )
> >
> > Gateway of last resort is not set
> >
> > 172.17.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > C 172.17.1.0 is directly connected, TokenRing0
> > 173.4.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > C 173.4.57.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
> > 161.52.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > R 161.52.1.0 [120/1] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:24, Virtual-Access1
> > 132.31.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
> > C 132.31.99.8/32 is directly connected, Virtual-Access1
> > C 132.31.99.0/24 is directly connected, Virtual-Access1
> > C 192.168.0.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0
> > C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial1
> > C 200.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Loopback101
> > R 201.0.0.0/15 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:11, Virtual-Access1
> > R 96.0.0.0/4 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:00, Virtual-Access1
> > R 203.0.0.0/8 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:00, Virtual-Access1
> > R 129.0.0.0/12 [120/5] via 132.31.99.8, 00:00:00, Virtual-Access1
> > C 181.48.0.0/13 is directly connected, Loopback201
> > R7#
> >
> > note all the CIDR routes in the routing table, all learned via RIP.
> >
> > How?
> >
> > interface Loopback101
> > ip address 201.0.0.1 255.254.0.0
> > !
> > interface Loopback1001
> > ip address 203.0.0.1 255.0.0.0
> > !
> > interface Loopback1002
> > ip address 129.1.1.1 255.240.0.0
> > !
> > interface Loopback1003
> > ip address 100.1.1.1 240.0.0.0
> > !
> > router rip
> > version 2
> > redistribute connected metric 5
> > network 132.31.0.0
> > network 161.52.0.0
> > network 201.0.0.0
> > no auto-summary
> >
> > you apparently do have to redistribute the CIDR routes into RIPv2. Silly
> me.
> > Why wouldn't that be obvious?
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> > ""Chuck"" wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].;
> > > kinda in answer to your private message:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_c
> > > /ipcprt2/1cdrip.htm
> > > watch the wrap
> > >
> > > according to this, Cisco's implementation of Ripv2 does indeed support
> > CIDR
> > >
> > > On the other hand, getting this to work appears to be problematic. A
> check
> > > of Doyle shows no CIDR example for Ripv2 A look though Large Scale IP
> > > Network Solutions yields this interesting sentence: "RIPV2 is able to
> > > support classless interdomain routes. It can propagate a classless
route
> > > through redistribution"
> > >
> > > I can't get a damn CIDR route to show up in the RIPv2 table no matter
> how
> > > many hokey pokies I do.
> > >
> > > At this point I'm going to assume you have tried RipV2 and have had the
> > same
> > > frustration I just had - seeing no CIDR routes. This calls for a bit
> more
> > > research.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >
> > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].;
> > > > I think you're trying to outsmart yourself. Can't be done!!! ;->
> > > >
> > > > I showed you in my private reply the result of the EIGRP test I set
> up.
> > > The
> > > > answer was "no problem"
> > > >
> > > > I also know from long lab rat experience that it is not a problem
with
> > > OSPF.
> > > >
> > > > I have not tried with either IS-IS or Ripv2, but again, why not?
> > > >
> > > > there may be issues with older IOS code. Some vendor older models may
> > not
> > > > support it. But I have no reason based on my experience, to believe
> that
> > > it
> > > > is an issue with current IOS code.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ""Pierre-Alex Guanel"" wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].;
> > > > > The statement that provoked my question is from RFC 1721. They say
> > > > >
> > > > > "Subnet masks are also necessary for implementation of "classless"
> > > > > addressing, as the CIDR work proposes"
> > > > >
> > > > > thus the question "if a routing protocol supports subnet mask does
> > that
> > > > > automatically mean that it can do CIDR?
> > > > >
> > > > > ( I think the answer is no because CIDR means that you could have
> > masks
> > > > > stilling bits from the newtork ID and the router may not like this
> > ....
> > > I
> > > > > also think that historically subnetting and Variable Length subnet
> > > masking
> > > > > came before CIDR. But those are just speculations. I don't have
> > examples
> > > /
> > > > > references to support my arguments and I would like to know if I am
> > > > correct.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pierre-Alex
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37049&t=37031
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
