I'm configured just like both suggest and it doesn't seem to work. Jon
Lewis showed a bit of his routing table that shows exactly the problem I'm
having.
Could this be a difference in the OSPF implementations on the PM2's and
PM3's ??? Maybe something that was fixed on COMOS 3.5.1b20, which I can't
run on a PM2 ???
- Randy Moore
At 08:40 AM 8/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>It's very simple to get the PM to aggragate the dialin routes, for example
>on my pm3 I have Assigned Address: xxx.xxx.249.224 (Pool Size 32)
>which gives me:
>xxx.xxx.249.224 27 xxx.xx.236.54 ospf/E2 ND 2 ether0
>Yes I know I'm wasting 9 IP (32 - 23) but at a cost of having less routes.
>And Yes all IP's work. I'm doing the same on other PM's with smaller pools
>(one is 16) The trick is to start on a subnet boundary and to make the
>pool just the right size.
>
>Krzysztof
>
>On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Randy Moore wrote:
>>
>> > 2) I have OSPF working fairly well, but I've noticed that each address in
>> > my dialup pools gets advertised as a seperate route. Pretty much half of
>> > my routing table is taken up by these "host routes". Since the pool is
>> > always a contiguous block, it seems to me it should be possible to
>> > advertise this entire pool as a single block, which should save some
memory
>> > and CPU time in each of my routers. I've read the tech notes & manuals,
>> > but haven't seen any way to do this.
>>
>> Like these:
>>
>> 205.229.60.30 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 10
eth0
>> 205.229.60.1 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 9
eth0
>> 205.229.60.28 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.254 UG 0 0 6
eth0
>> 205.229.60.2 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.254 UG 0 0 14
eth0
>> 205.229.60.24 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.252 UG 0 0 6
eth0
>> 205.229.60.4 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.252 UG 0 0 27
eth0
>> 205..229.60.16 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.248 UG 0 0 39
eth0
>> 205.229.60.8 205.229.48.10 255.255.255.248 UG 0 0 37
eth0
>>
>> The aggregator code in ComOS is Drain Bamaged. This pool should be
>> advertised as 205.229.60.0/27. Perhaps the PM needs some Cisco features
>> like being able to nail a route to null0, and then use redistribute
>> commands and route-maps to tell the router what you want to export into
>> OSPF.
>>
>> With just one PM, this isn't a big deal. If I had a stack of PM's
>> instead of 160 ports in 3 linux boxes running gated, I'd probably be a bit
>> more concerned about the routing table bloat.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
>> Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
>> Florida Digital Turnpike |
>> ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
>>
>
>
>
- Randy Moore
Atlantech Online, Inc.
(301) 593-2794
http://www.atlantech.net/