From: David H. Brown (DHBrown@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 14:26:52 GMT-3
Brian,
Thanks for posting this version info! I was having this problem when your
post arrived, I read it and indeed it fixed the problem! I am running
ccBootCamp lab #9 on rack #1, and the EIGRP group of routers was not
correctly receiving the 137.20.20.0 route. This looks like it "may not be"
redistributing correctly, because other routes ARE redistributing correctly.
I usually use the 0.0.0.0 syntax, and I verified my answer with Marc's - and
it was correct, but not working. When I changed to a C-class wildcard mask,
shazam! Everybody's happy! BTW, the redistributing router in this case is
running 12.0(5)T. Thanks again!
David
(RTP Lab 6/15-6/16)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Brian Hescock
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:18 PM
To: Kruepke
Cc: Kevin M. Woods; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Route redistribution problem
It was found in 11.2(18) and 12.0(5) (mainline images for both). The bug
was fixed in 12.0(8.2)T and 12.0(8.2)P1, meaning it's fixed in
12.1(1). 12.1(1) incorporates all of the 12.0(x)T code. I'm not sure
about the 12.0(8.2)P1, I didn't think we had a P train in 12.0, I thought
it's only 11.2. It could be a typo.
Brian
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Kruepke wrote:
> Do you know what IOS(es) this affects? Or is it all? I know I've seen
that mask work in some situations, but the use of "may not be" makes me
nervous...
>
> Thanks.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin M. Woods" <kev@nil.org>
> To: "chinawy" <chinawy@etang.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Route redistribution problem
>
>
> This is a bug (CSCdm75819). The description states:
>
> If OSPF is configured using a "network x.x.x.x 0.0.0.0 area x"
> command (explicitly identifying and interface), then the connected
> interface information may not be properly redistributed into other
> protocols (configured to "redistribute ospf xxx...").
> Workaround: use a general mask instead ("network x.x.x.0 0.0.0.255
> area x", for example).
>
> Kevin
>
> // hi,all:
> //
> // I have a quession about route redis following :
> //
> // e0 e0 s0 s0
> // r1---------------r2---------------r3
> // ospf100 eigrp 100
> //
> //
> // r1:
> //
> // int e0
> // ip add 137.20.20.1 255.255.255.0
> //
> // router ospf
> // netw 137.20.20.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
> //
> //
> // r2:
> //
> // int e0
> // ip add 137.20.20.2 255.255.255.0
> // int s0
> // ip add 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
> //
> // router eigrp 100
> // netw 192.168.1.1
> // redis ospf 100 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500
> //
> // router ospf 100
> // netw 137.20.20.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
> //
> //
> // r3:
> // int s0
> // ip add 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
> //
> // router eigrp 100
> // netw 192.168.1.0
> //
> // apply this config on router,i haven't seen 137.20.20.0 in r3 route
table.
> // i change my config in r2:
> // r2:
> //
> // int e0
> // ip add 137.20.20.2 255.255.255.0
> // int s0
> // ip add 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
> //
> // router eigrp 100
> // netw 192.168.1.1
> // redis ospf 100 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500
> //
> // router ospf 100
> // netw 137.20.20.2 0.0.0.255 area 0 file://changed//
> //
> // After changed,i can see this route about 137.20.20.0 in r3 route
table,i feel puzzle, sb will give me idea about it?
> //
> //
> //
> //
> //
> //
> //
> // --------------------------
> // Paul Wang (CCIE Candidate)
> // E-Mail:chinawy@etang.com
> // --------------------------
> // 赶快参加CNNIC有奖调查，亿唐需要您的支持。
> // http://fsurvey.cnnic.net.cn/survey/index.html
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:41 GMT-3