From: Scott Morris (SMorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 09 1999 - 15:43:30 GMT-3
You have to be concerned with failure conditions from the standpoint of how
they affect what you are trying to do. :) Always remember that in the lab
(similar to real life) one thing may build upon another. I believe that
there's a statement on the first page talking about how all routers must
reach all other routers unless explicitly stated within the exercises.
Scott Morris, MCSE, CNE(3.x), CCDP, CCIE #4713, Security Specialization
smorris@tele-tech.com
-----Original Message-----
From: brian.m.edwards@exxon.com [mailto:brian.m.edwards@exxon.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:35 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: FW: OSPF/RIP mutual redistribution with 2 border routers
It is my understanding that in the CCIE lab you do not have to be concerned
with failure conditions. You just have to achieve connectivity and maintain
it throughout subsequent exercises.
Am I correct?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sukhdev Sidhu [SMTP:ssidhu@sta.samsung.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 11:59 AM
> To: 'brian.m.edwards@exxon.com'
> Subject: RE: OSPF/RIP mutual redistribution with 2 border routers
>
> tried this last night...
>
> --E0--rip10-S0-----RIP---S0-border1---S1-------RIP-------S0--BORDER2
> | |
> S2 s1
> | |
> OSPF ospf
> | |
> ---s0---router12------s1---------
>
> before the access control loists were added, route from BORDER2 to E0 on
> rip10 was through ROUTER12, also route from bordere 2 to border 1 was
> through router12, due to lower admin distance of ospf. when the serial
link
> between rip10 and border1 was down BORDER1 was tring to get to E0 on rip
10
> through BORDER2.
>
> Once the acls was added the routes appeared proper. However if the serial
> link between BORDER1 and BORDER2 were lost then BORDER2 could not get to
> BORDER1 and RIP10.
>
> anyone know of a way to do keep proper routing tables and maintain
> connectivity between BORDER2 and RIP10 & Border1. mayber hight cost static
> routes on BORDER1 and BORDER2???????
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brian.m.edwards@exxon.com [mailto:brian.m.edwards@exxon.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 8:46 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OSPF/RIP mutual redistribution with 2 border routers
>
>
> > I am confused about the issues involved with redistributing both ways
> between two different protocols. I tried to set up Caslow's example on
page
> 421 "Redistributing and Admin Distance", but I can't create a routing loop
> (prior to adding any distribution lists).
> >
> > The Border-1 router always keeps the RIP route to 172.16.1.0/24 (even
> though the OSPF database has a route to the OSPF-11 router), hence
breaking
> the routing loop. I would think that OSPF's lower admin distance would
cause
> the loop as the author states. Does OSPF have a built-in defense against
> this creating routing loops?
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:59 GMT-3