From: Connary, Julie Ann (jconnary@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 17:53:47 GMT-3
>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:01:52 -0500
>To: "Robert DeVito" <robertdevito@hotmail.com>
>From: "Connary, Julie Ann" <jconnary@cisco.com>
>Subject: Re: summary-address in ospf and redistribution
>
>Try it in the lab - and then look at your ip ospf database external
>routers- no - not on the redistributed router, because IGRP covers all the
>connected
>interface if they are in the same classfull network and the same subnet.
>
>
>
>At 07:41 PM 1/23/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>>Shouldn't split-horizon take care of the problem of IGRP advertising OSPF
>>routes back into OSPF?
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>>----Original Message Follows----
>>From: SherefMohamed@cdh.org
>>Reply-To: SherefMohamed@cdh.org
>>To: "Connary, Julie Ann" <jconnary@cisco.com>
>>CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com, nobody@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: Re: summary-address in ospf and redistribution
>>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:55:22 -0600
>>
>>You need to do mutual redistribution between OSPF and IGRP,
>>the idea is to not allow IGRP send back to OSPF the summary address !
>>Here is how I will do it:
>>
>>!
>>router igrp 2
>>..........
>>distribute-list 10 out ospf
>>..........
>>!
>>router ospf 1
>>...........
>>distribute-list 11 out igrp
>>...........
>>!
>>
>>access-list 10 deny 170.10.2.0 0.0.0.255
>>access-list 10 permit 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255
>>!
>>access-list 11 permit 172.10.2.0 0.0.0.255
>>access-list 11 deny 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255
>>
>>Please test it & tell me how it works !
>>
>>Thanks
>>Sheref
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Connary,
>> Julie Ann" To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> <jconnary@cis cc:
>> co.com> Subject: summary-address in
>> ospf and redistribution
>> Sent by:
>> nobody@groups
>> tudy.com
>>
>>
>> 01/23/2001
>> 08:37 AM
>> Please
>> respond to
>> "Connary,
>> Julie Ann"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I ran across a practice lab and another fat-kid lab that use the ospf
>>summary-address to overcome
>>vlsm to fsm issues when redistributing ospf into igrp:
>>
>>
>>
>>situation: The ospf connected interface has a longer mask than the IGRP
>>connected interface.
>> area-range does not work because it is on the same
>>router.
>>
>> The Fatkid lab - expert redistribution - solves this with a
>>summary-address.
>>
>>Question - does this not inject E2 routes back into your OSPF domain?
>>
>>
>>OSPF area 2
>>170.10.128.4 - 255.255.255.192
>>|
>>|
>>|
>>R4 -----------IGRP - 170.10.2.4 255.255.255.0
>>
>>To redistribute the ospf interface into IGRP a summary-address is
>>used: summary-address 170.10.128.0 255.255.255.0
>>
>>But then in the ospf domain you get an E2 route to 170.10.128.0 in your
>>ospf domain.
>>
>>So how do you prevent this E2 route into OSPF - can you filter it?
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>remember - no static, no default.
>>
>>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 - 10:27:41 GMT-3