205.229.60 netmask 255.255.255.224
205.229.60.0/27 routed to pm1 205.229.48.10 for ISDN
205.229.60.32/27 FREE
205.229.60.64/27 FREE
205.229.60.96/27 FREE
...
I've got the assigned address on pm1 set to 205.229.60.1 and the pool size
set to 30 (I only have 10 BRI ports installed). I was under the
impression the pm would aggregate routes by default and export a route for
205.229.60.0/27. Instead, I'm getting this on my Ciscos:
205.229.60.0 is variably subnetted, 8 subnets, 4 masks
O E2 205.229.60.16 255.255.255.248
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.28 255.255.255.254
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.30 255.255.255.255
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.24 255.255.255.252
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.4 255.255.255.252
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.1 255.255.255.255
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.2 255.255.255.254
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.60.8 255.255.255.248
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:32, Ethernet0
Why's the PM doing this? Do I need to reboot after increasing the pool
size? The app notes say I'd have to if I decreased the pool size...but I
increased it. I did a reset ospf just to be safe, and it didn't change
the above.
I'm getting similar non-aggregate routes for subnets (/28's) routed to
ISDN users:
205.229.53.0 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 2 masks
O E2 205.229.53.17 255.255.255.255
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:55, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.53.16 255.255.255.240
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:55, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.53.1 255.255.255.255
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:55, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.53.0 255.255.255.240
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:55, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.53.32 255.255.255.240
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:55, Ethernet0
O E2 205.229.53.64 255.255.255.240
[110/2] via 205.229.48.10, 00:00:55, Ethernet0
When multiple contiguous subnet users are connected, should their routes
aggregate? Why does the PM bother exporting a route to 205.229.53.1 if
for the same user, it exports a route to 205.229.53.0/28?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr.
________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______