route aggregation and summarization

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by aaabbb16@hotmail.com, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Two more questions here:
    1. Anyone can explain route aggregation and summarization. my question
    they are same.
    Also how they are related to CIDR and VLSM.

    2. Right now does CIDR for route summarization
    only ? Anyone use it to assisgn a classless ip addr. such as
    192.168.2.1 255.0.0.0?

    st
     
    , Mar 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trendkill Guest

    On Mar 24, 12:31 am, wrote:
    > Two more questions here:
    > 1. Anyone can explain route aggregation and summarization. my question
    > they are same.
    > Also how they are related to CIDR and VLSM.
    >
    > 2. Right now does CIDR for route summarization
    > only ? Anyone use it to assisgn a classless ip addr. such as
    > 192.168.2.1 255.0.0.0?
    >
    > st


    Route aggregation is the grouping of smaller routes together into
    advertisements that are smaller in number (count) then all of the
    individual routes. Generally speaking, you would use 10.0.0.0/16 as
    an aggregate to 10.0.1.0, 10.0.2.0, 10.0.3.0, etc, which you may have
    configured as vlans in a datacenter. Summarization can refer to many
    things, but can be configured on specific routing protocols to
    automatically summarize by the Class of the network (based on first
    octet). Summarization can also be configured manually, either by
    commands like 'ip summary-route eigrp', or in BGP by creating a route
    to null0 for the summary and putting in the network statement for the
    aggregate network or supernet.

    To answer your second question, 192.168.2.1 with a 255.0.0.0 subnet
    mask would mean that router is advertising 192.0.0.0 - 192.255.255.255
    via its routing protocol,. Presuming you are asking about a situation
    where 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.0 is a interface address, and you want
    to summarize a larger range than this, you would put summaries towards
    the WAN or Internet (usually summaries configured in the core and then
    passed into the WAN routers, although some folks prefer to put the
    summaries on the WAN routers themselves). Using a mask of 255.0.0.0
    would most likely be a very bad idea, unless of course you really have
    a datacenter with 16,000,000 hosts.

    At their core, summaries are used to keep the routing table manageable
    and clean. If you have 10 datacenters, and you were being clean, you
    could have about 10 or so routes in your table, before WAN links or
    default routes. If you did not summarize, you would have 10 x each
    vlan or subnetwork in each datacenter. Particularly when you are
    dealing with retail companies with hundreds or thousands of stores
    connected via point to point links, it was easy in the old days to
    degrade performance on a router or link with all of the updates from
    the various routes. This is why it is best to use stub,
    summarization, and default information originate to keep your tables
    short and succinct.
     
    Trendkill, Mar 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. schrieb:
    > 2. Right now does CIDR for route summarization
    > only ? Anyone use it to assisgn a classless ip addr. such as
    > 192.168.2.1 255.0.0.0?


    To add to Trendkill's very valid answer:

    Classes are dead. It's only out of habit that people still frequently
    use a /24 mask with addresses in the 192.168 range. All networks are
    classless nowadays in the sense that you cannot reliably deduce the
    netmask from the first few bits of the address - you need to be told
    what it is. In particular, networks using addresses from the 10.* and
    172.16 to 172.31 private ranges rarely use the /8 or /16 mask
    respectively that would have been associated with them in the old
    classful world.

    HTH
    T.
     
    Tilman Schmidt, Mar 24, 2008
    #3
  4. News Reader Guest

    Summarization also has benefits in terms of convergence.

    Using Trendkill's example, if you had a summary route of 10.0.0.0/16 in
    your table, you would not be aware of the status of individual
    "summarized" routes such as 10.0.1.0, 10.0.2.0, 10.0.3.0, which means
    you would not have to reconverge every time there was a change in status
    of one of these routes.

    A flapping interface on a "summarized" network would not result in you
    having to recalculate an entire OSPF topology (for example).

    It provides stability, and security.

    Best regards,
    News Reader


    wrote:
    > Two more questions here:
    > 1. Anyone can explain route aggregation and summarization. my question
    > they are same.
    > Also how they are related to CIDR and VLSM.
    >
    > 2. Right now does CIDR for route summarization
    > only ? Anyone use it to assisgn a classless ip addr. such as
    > 192.168.2.1 255.0.0.0?
    >
    > st
    >
     
    News Reader, Mar 24, 2008
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. news.eclipse.co.uk

    CSS11501 and link aggregation?

    news.eclipse.co.uk, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    528
    TheOpsMgr
    Nov 24, 2008
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    6,286
  3. Scooby
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
    Scooby
    Jun 6, 2007
  4. dennis

    Summarization with EIGRP

    dennis, Jan 20, 2008, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    500
  5. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    5,302
    Scott Perry
    Aug 7, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page