From: brian.m.edwards@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu Dec 09 1999 - 15:34:52 GMT-3
It is my understanding that in the CCIE lab you do not have to be concerned wit
h failure conditions. You just have to achieve connectivity and maintain it thr
oughout 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