From: Padhu (LFG) (padhu@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Dec 29 2000 - 13:53:14 GMT-3
I was seriously considering about learning this ..but messed it up ..Will
try this weeekend.
Are tags locally significant to the routers or do they get associated with
the routing protocol and all routes learnt via that native routing protocol?
...if i have a frame relay network with 4 rtrs and tag the ospf routes as 1
and have another set of 2 rtrs running eigrp ..the native routes being
tagged as 3..during mutual redistribution in ospf i can permit only tag 3
routes to come in and similarly in eigrp i can permit only tag 1 routes to
comein... what happens when there are multiple points of redistribution and
there a few external eigrp and ospf routes too EX or E1 / E2 ?
Appreciate any thoughts .
Cheers,Padhu
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Hescock [mailto:bhescock@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:27 PM
To: Ronnie Royston
Cc: 'Connary, Julie Ann'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: route-feedback, route-maps and mutual redistribution -
discus sion topic
In addition to distribute lists and the typical way we do route-maps, you
can also tag the routes so you don't have to worry about matching networks
all the time. Just tag the networks once then you can do a permit or deny
based upon the tag. Below is a url that covers it. Everyone should try
it at least once because you know how it is, if it can be configured on a
Cisco router, it can be on the exam.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/np1_c
/1cprt1/1cindep.htm
If you can't get to it, look to see if the url wrapped to the next line,
it's rather long.
Brian
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000,
Ronnie Royston wrote:
> 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 - 08:26:13 GMT-3