I don't see any conflict between the ospf and bgp routes in the output you've provided? You seem to have:
192.168.20.0/24 via bgp
192.168.20.1/32 via ospf
192.168.17.0/24 via bgp
192.168.17.1/32 via ospf
192.168.16.0/24 via bgp
192.168.16.1/32 via ospf
In each case, you have a /24 via bgp, and a /32 via ospf. These overlap, but they are not identical--they are each a seperate route--so ospf's and bgp's routing information don't ever get compared based on admin distance.
I don't understand the question about the /24's? The network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area 0 statement tells ospf to find all the interfaces on this box within the address range 0.0.0.0 with all bits wildcard, and run ospf on those interfaces. In this case, that's all interfaces.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...