For smaller pools you have twice as many start points.
Hope this helps.
Krzysztof
On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Randy Moore wrote:
> Hmm, Krzysztof says it should work and MZ says it should work.
>
> 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/
>