[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
B 10.0.0.0/8 [20/0] via 192.168.1.1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C 10.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: BGP /8 and local /24.
2. Analysis: BGP hides local subnet.
3. Context: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET error.
4. Recommendation: Advertise specific /24.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET detected. BGP /8 hides local 10.1.1.0/24.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D 10.0.0.0/8 [90/30720] via 192.168.1.1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C 10.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP /8 and local /24.
2. Analysis: Auto-summary hides local subnet.
3. Context: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET error.
4. Recommendation: Disable auto-summary.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET detected. EIGRP auto-summary hides local 10.1.1.0/24.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
R 172.16.0.0/16 [120/1] via 192.168.1.1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
C 172.16.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/1

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: RIPv1 /16 and local /24.
2. Analysis: RIPv1 hides local subnet.
3. Context: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET error.
4. Recommendation: Upgrade to RIPv2.
</reasoning>
<answer>
CRITICAL: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET detected. RIPv1 hides local 172.16.1.0/24.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O 10.1.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
O 10.1.0.0/16 [110/2] via 192.168.1.2

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF /24s and /16 summary.
2. Analysis: /16 breaks classless design.
3. Context: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET risk.
4. Recommendation: Remove /16 summary.
</reasoning>
<answer>
WARNING: DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET detected. OSPF /16 summary breaks specific routing.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
D 10.1.1.0/24 [90/30720] via 192.168.1.1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D 10.1.2.0/24 [90/30720] via 192.168.1.2

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: EIGRP /24s across boundary.
2. Analysis: Valid EIGRP design.
3. Context: No error.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET error. EIGRP handles this seamlessly.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
R 10.1.1.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.1.1
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
R 10.1.2.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.1.2

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: RIPv2 /24s across boundary.
2. Analysis: Valid RIPv2 design.
3. Context: No error.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET error. RIPv2 handles this seamlessly.
</answer>


[System] You are a network routing expert. Analyze the routing table, detect issues, and provide step-by-step reasoning. Use the format: <reasoning>...step-by-step analysis...</reasoning><answer>...concise answer...</answer>

[User]
Routing table:
O 10.1.1.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1
C 172.16.1.0/24 is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
O 10.1.2.0/24 [110/2] via 10.0.0.1

Question: Identify any DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET errors in this routing table.

[Assistant]
<reasoning>
1. Observation: OSPF /24s across boundary.
2. Analysis: Valid OSPF design.
3. Context: No error.
4. Recommendation: No action required.
</reasoning>
<answer>
INFO: No DISCONTIGUOUS_SUBNET error. OSPF handles this seamlessly.
</answer>