From: Ronnie Royston (RonnieR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 28 2000 - 19:01:39 GMT-3
I have found that manupulating admin distance along with the passive
interface command is easier, albiet more 'dangerous'. Certainly, it takes
less commands for this method. The higher admin distance should be on the
remote routers, the lower on the core.
-----Original Message-----
From: Connary, Julie Ann [mailto:jconnary@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 1:45 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: route-feedback, route-maps and mutual redistribution -
discussion topic
Hi All,
I am noticing that solutions to many of the labs I am doing do not include
distribute lists
or route-maps to prevent route-feedback at mutual-redistribution points.
Doyle, in his
redistribution chapter (page 717) also does not use them but mentions on
page 769 that you should
always use them "any time a router is performing mutual-redistribution -
the mutual sharing of routes between two
or more routing protocols - route filters should be used to ensure the
routes are advertised in only one direction."
so does anyone have any comments on this? Are you all using route-maps to
control redistribution at
mutual-redistribution points - like a router redistributing between ospf
and eigrp? Any rules of thumb to go by?
Sometimes it's a real pain to get setup and can cost you alot of time -
like why the defualt route is
not getting propagated.
Thanks,
Julie Ann
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ann Connary
| | Network Consulting Engineer
||| ||| Federal Support Program
.|||||. .|||||. 13635 Dulles Technology Drive,
Herndon VA 20171
.:|||||||||:.:|||||||||:. Pager: 1-888-642-0551
c i s c o S y s t e m s Email: jconnary@cisco.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:26:12 GMT-3