All true cept the last sentence.  RIP understands "ip route 0.0.0.0
0.0.0.0" without ip classless.

  Dave

"Steven A. Ridder" wrote:
> 
> In the simplest terms, one carries a mask (RIP 2, the classless) and one
> dosen't.  If it has a mask, the router knows which part of address is
> network and which is host.  Also, the classful protocol has to rely on the
> class of the protocol (A, B, C, D, E) to derive the network and host,
unless
> the router has an interface attached to a subnetted network.  The best book
> to learn this is CCIE Practical Studies, Vol 1, as the author does a good
> job explaining it.
> 
> Also classless and classful protocols look up routes in the rouing table
> differently.  A classless use the longest match (most subnet bits in mask)
> to determine best route to destination and the classfull looks up by major
> network first, then works it's way down til it finds the best match.  Also
> with classless, you can use "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0" to create a gateway
> of last resort.
> 
> --
> 
> RFC 1149 Compliant.
> Get in my head:
> http://sar.dynu.com
> 
> ""Matt Saunders""  wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > Im really struggling to understand the requirement in using the ip
> classless
> > command when you are configuring a default route.
> >
> > I noticed that RIP 2 is a classless protocol & RIP ver 1 is a classfull.
> >
> > Can anyone help me understand what the difference is (in simple terms!!)
> as
> > i want to move on with my studies though im sure this is something thats
> > going to come up again!!!!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Matt
-- 
David Madland
Sr. Network Engineer
CCIE# 2016
Qwest Communications Int. Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
612-664-3367

"Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38870&t=38870
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to