 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
38 messages in net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp[c-nsp] VLSM| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Shaun | Jan 10, 2005 4:53 pm | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 10, 2005 5:26 pm | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 10, 2005 5:27 pm | |
| matthew zeier | Jan 10, 2005 5:46 pm | |
| Shaun | Jan 10, 2005 6:19 pm | |
| Michael Smith | Jan 10, 2005 6:26 pm | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 10, 2005 6:28 pm | |
| lis...@hojmark.org | Jan 10, 2005 6:55 pm | |
| Brant I. Stevens | Jan 10, 2005 11:25 pm | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 11, 2005 2:33 am | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 11, 2005 6:11 am | |
| Mark Persiko | Jan 11, 2005 10:49 am | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 11, 2005 11:22 am | |
| Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN | Jan 11, 2005 12:11 pm | |
| Brant I. Stevens | Jan 11, 2005 12:45 pm | |
| Pete Templin | Jan 11, 2005 12:52 pm | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 11, 2005 1:30 pm | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 11, 2005 1:39 pm | |
| Pete Templin | Jan 11, 2005 2:09 pm | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 11, 2005 2:47 pm | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 11, 2005 2:48 pm | |
| matthew zeier | Jan 11, 2005 3:09 pm | |
| lis...@hojmark.org | Jan 11, 2005 5:22 pm | |
| Anson Rinesmith | Jan 11, 2005 5:47 pm | |
| Michael Loftis | Jan 11, 2005 5:57 pm | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 11, 2005 7:23 pm | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 11, 2005 7:37 pm | |
| Shaun | Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm | |
| Jon Lewis | Jan 11, 2005 9:48 pm | |
| Majid Farid | Jan 12, 2005 12:24 am | |
| matthew zeier | Jan 12, 2005 1:23 am | |
| Ted Mittelstaedt | Jan 12, 2005 1:41 am | |
| Ted Mittelstaedt | Jan 12, 2005 1:44 am | |
| Ted Mittelstaedt | Jan 12, 2005 1:51 am | |
| lis...@hojmark.org | Jan 12, 2005 1:18 pm | |
| lis...@hojmark.org | Jan 12, 2005 1:30 pm | |
| Shaun | Jan 13, 2005 4:05 am | |
| Ted Mittelstaedt | Jan 14, 2005 12:29 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | [c-nsp] VLSM | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Stephen J. Wilcox (ste...@telecomplete.co.uk) | |
| Date: | Jan 11, 2005 1:30:26 pm | |
| List: | net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp | |
Hi Mark,
that isnt specifically the result of enabling classless behaviour, in classful mode you are still using the last resort just that it assumes any 172.16.0.0 Class B traffic stays internal so if theres no route its dropped.
Just route 172.16.0.0/16 to null0 and it will drop the packets...
Alternatively route 0.0.0.0/0 to null0 and only configure routes on your last resort gateway for known active destinations (whichever of these produces the tidiest config)
Of course, you've not mentioned why if you have the .1 and .2 /24s in use but not the .3 is traffic being sent to it in such large quantities as to be noticable?
Steve
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Mark Persiko wrote:
If you have a hierarchical network topology with the gateway of last resort facing one egress point at the core, then I've noticed that "ip classless" has the unfortunate side effect of sending all traffic out that egress pipe, whose destination is for subnets that aren't used within the network. That is my condition right now and I am burning bandwidth, and seeking a solution!
In other words, if you are using 172.16.1/24 and 172.16.2/24, and you have packets headed for 172.16.3/24, "ip classless" will make them head to the gateway of last resort instead of just dropping them.
I am using EIGRP in my network. I have it in mind to turn off "ip classless." This is one advantage of "classful routing;" traffic bound for any non-defined subnets are dropped. However, in my network, I have other subnets of 172.16 that are beyond the EIGRP cloud, so I need to be able to get to them.
One solution I've considered is explicit static routing for all valid subnets of 172.16 and then null routing anything else for 172.16/16 itself. What do you think?
Thanks, Mark P.
- Mark C. Persiko, Network Engineer - IT Division, Boulder Valley School District
-----Original Message----- From: cisc...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisc...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brant I. Stevens Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:26 PM To: lis...@hojmark.org; 'matthew zeier'; 'Gert Doering'; 'Shaun' Cc: cisc...@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] VLSM
While I agree that having no class (when talking about networking :B) is a good thing, "classfulness" is not completely dead... Sometimes you still have to use RIP v1.. There's also EIGRP and BGP auto-summary using classful boundaries.
On 01/10/2005 06:59 PM, "lis...@hojmark.org" <lis...@hojmark.org> wrote:
However, I can't get people (sales) to stop calling it "class c".
Even worse is when they (and some 'techs') call everything /24 a "class C" and a every /16 a "class B", even when it's 10.10.10/24 and 10.10/16, for example.
Yuck.
-A
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisc...@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisc...@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/