From: David Ankers (d.ankers@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 23:06:36 GMT-3
I'll try number one and a little on two, comments in line.
> 1. rip was 172.16.1.0 /24 etc. And I had 192.168.19.0/28, .17/28, .33/28
> comming from bgp. All interfaces of the router in /24 mask. So I though
> performed the redistribution/ distribute-list but did not aggregate. I was
> hoping that it will no get redistributed because I did not aggregate and
> mask do not match. But it did get redistributed.
The natrual mask for 192.x.x.x is a /24 so the masks did match. Rip V1 has no
way to even accept the /28 mask from BGP and goes off the first 3 bits which
in the case of 198.x.x.x matched the /24 on the interfaces hence
redistribution.
> 2. Another, instance, few months back. Two interfacesof the router in /30
> mask, running bgp. one int in /24 running rip .
> Redistributed/distribute-list bgp to rip, even aggregated. But
> redistribution did not happen. Finally I added netw x.x.x.x command to in
> router rip mode which did the job.
All I can say was what were the ip addresses of the /30's where they class C
adds? I honestly don't understand this one though as I fail to see how the
network command would help??
I'm off to test this theory, note the above is just a theory and don't take
it as solid fact.
D.
>
> Devender Singh
> BE(Hons), CCNP
> IP Solution Specialist
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:39 GMT-3