This looks like a summary issue to me. You should see a RIP advertisement for 172.16.1.0, not 0.0. Of note, the classless and classful behavior are not entirely related to whether or not an update includes the prefix length. Make sure you have ip classless enabled and I would try turning off auto-summary to see if you end up with more appropriate announcements. Of note, with the same prefix length used in your RIP network you shouldn't see any issues with V1 routing. With ip classless off however, you should bump into some issue.
At 04:52 AM 5/28/2002 -0400, Phil Barker wrote: >Hi group, > I set up a Lab to highlight the problem that >discontiguous networks brings to distance vector >protocols. I seperated three Class B networks >(172.16.1.0/24, 172.16.2.0/24, 172.16.3.0/24) with the >class C networks (192.168.1.4/30 & 192.168.1.8/30). > >As expected with RIP 1, I can clearly see network >172.16.0.0/16 being advertised over the serial >interfaces, with 'debug ip rip'. > >I then configured the Lab for RIP 2 thinking that this >would be a solution to the problem, since RIP 2 >advertises the subnet mask with the network address, >but ran up against the same problem as RIP 1. > >I can solve the problem using secondary addresses, >however, I feel that RIP 2 should also solve the >problem. > >Am I missing something here ? > >Just thinking out loud, should I have put 'no >auto-summary' under the rip routing ? maybe it >defaults to classful behaviour anyway !!! > >Appreciate any responses. > >Phil. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Everything you'll ever need on one web page >from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts >http://uk.my.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45240&t=45220 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
