From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 14:30:46 GMT-3
You're welcome! By the way, if anyone is running 12.0(5)T, upgrade. I
think there's also a redistribution problem in 12.0(7)T, I've had two
cases on it this past week. The 12.0(x)T code is end-of-life now anyway,
go to 12.1(x) mainline, which includes 12.0(x)T code. This is just like
11.3(x)T code, which is built into 12.0x) mainline and 11.3(x)T then went
end-of-life. The T code is only for the latest and greatest features, so
if you don't need them don't use T code because it's more susceptible to
problems. 12.0(11) has been working great.
Brian
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, David H. Brown wrote:
> 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