Ben Voigt said:
Yes it is. And this indicates a misconfiguration in the local IP address of
the interface. RIP/OSPF/other router table sharing protocols are not
involved.
That would be a useless implementation of summarization.
More typically, if a router has:
10.0.2.0/24 connected through eth0, next hop 192.168.1.2
10.0.3.0/24 connected through eth0, next hop 192.168.1.3
a trunk on eth1
Then instead of publishing each route through OSPF exchanges over eth1, it
should send just one route, "I am the next hop for 10.0.2.0/23"
Because the IP address on the router interface is configured with the wrong
subnet mask?
no they are correct. i have an interface with IP address 192.168.0.2
mask-255.255.255.0 then another is 172.16.1.1 mask-255.255.255.0 (subnetted
from class B-->classless).
but the routing table is like this.
destination network mask gateway interface
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.254 externe
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 loopback
127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 loopback
172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.1.1 interne
172.16.1.1 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 loopback
172.16.255.255 255.255.255.255 172.16.1.1 interne
192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2 externe
192.168.0.2 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 loopback
192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 192168.0.2 externe
244.0.0.0 244.0.0.0 192.168.0.2 externe
244.0.0.0 244.0.0.0 172.16.1.1 interne
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.2 externe
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 172.16.1.1 interne
if you have a Windows Server 2003. try to subnet a class-based like A,B or
C. you'll see that the broadcast address will be the classfull address.
thank for your helps.
vubinhlunel