From: frank wells (fwells12@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 15:37:44 GMT-3
I was just gathering enough information to compare your scenario with one I
ran across myself a while ago. My thoughts do not apply 'artifact' any
longer, Oh well!
I didn't realize you had fixed this. I thought you were still>From: "Chuck
Larrieu" <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
>To: "frank wells" <fwells12@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: route artifact revisited
>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:59:34 -0800
>
>Lots of different masks on both sides.
>
> 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 7 subnets, 4 masks
>O IA 10.10.2.0/24 [110/128] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
>O IA 10.10.3.0/24 [110/128] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
>O IA 10.10.5.0/24 [110/128] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
>O IA 10.3.0.0/16 [110/138] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
>O IA 10.1.0.0/16 [110/74] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
>O IA 10.202.0.0/20 [110/138] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
>O IA 10.202.16.2/32 [110/129] via 20.253.253.5, 09:59:02, Serial1
> 20.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 10 subnets, 5 masks
>C 20.253.253.4/30 is directly connected, Serial1
>D 20.253.253.0/30 [90/2233856] via 20.254.254.6, 00:29:01, TokenRing0
>D 20.6.6.0/24 [90/345600] via 20.254.254.6, 09:59:03, TokenRing0
>C 20.254.254.0/24 is directly connected, TokenRing0
>D 20.253.253.1/32 [90/2233856] via 20.254.254.6, 00:29:01, TokenRing0
>O E2 20.253.253.2/32 [110/20] via 20.253.253.5, 00:29:06, Serial1
>D 20.50.0.0/17 [90/194560] via 20.254.254.5, 09:59:09, TokenRing0
>C 20.40.40.32/27 is directly connected, Loopback0
>C 20.40.40.64/27 is directly connected, Loopback1
>D 20.50.128.0/17 [90/194560] via 20.254.254.5, 09:59:09, TokenRing0
>
>The route in question is configured on R1 ethernet interface.
>
>Frank, I'm curious the direction you are taking. With the problem having
>been cleared through the steps I mentioned, and having been stable for
>several hours now, even after numerous clear ip route * and shut and no
>shut
>on various interfaces, I am prone to call this "artifact" and file it under
>"gotchas"
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>frank wells
>Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:43 AM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: route artifact revisited
>
>What are the subnet masks you are using on both sides, and is the route in
>question sourced from a loopback interface?
>
>
> >From: "Chuck Larrieu" <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
> >To: "frank wells" <fwells12@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: RE: route artifact revisited
> >Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:34:43 -0800
> >
> >The ospf domain uses subnets of 10.0.0.0
> >
> >The eigrp domain uses subnets of 20.0.0.0
> >
> >The route in question was 10.1.0.0/16
> >
> >As I said, all is good now that I have sung and danced and done the hokey
> >pokey. I am just curious if there is a rational explanation - something I
> >am
> >overlooking. I cannot think of one.
> >
> >Now it looks like this:
> >O IA 10.3.0.0/16 [110/138] via 20.253.253.5, 09:35:13, Serial1
> >O IA 10.1.0.0/16 [110/74] via 20.253.253.5, 09:35:13, Serial1
> >O IA 10.202.0.0/20 [110/138] via 20.253.253.5, 09:35:13, Serial1
> >
> >Before it looked like this:
> >
> >O IA 10.3.0.0/16 [110/138] via 20.253.253.5, 09:35:13, Serial1
> >D EX 10.1.0.0/16 [170/26137600] via 20.253.253.1, 00:06:11, Serial1
> >O IA 10.202.0.0/20 [110/138] via 20.253.253.5, 09:35:13, Serial1
> >
> >( note - I did some cutting and pasting to duplicate the appearance. With
> >the problem gone, I do not have traces to show. )
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> >frank wells
> >Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:13 AM
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: route artifact revisited
> >
> >What prefixs' are you using on the OSPF and EIGRP sides?
> >
> >
> > >From: "Chuck Larrieu" <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
> > >Reply-To: "Chuck Larrieu" <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
> > >To: "CCIE_Lab Groupstudy List" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Subject: route artifact revisited
> > >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:12:41 -0800
> > >
> > >Practicing redistribution for the next couple of days. My strange
> >behaviour
> > >of the evening:
> > >
> > >Ospf domain --------------EIGRP domain
> > >Router_1-----------------------router_4 r4 runs ospf and eigrp
>but
> > >does not redistribute
> > >| /
> > >Router_3----------Router_6 r3 redistributes both ways, r6 is
> > >eigrp
> > >only
> > >
> > >The artifact - a route directly connected to an interface on R1 shows
>up
> >on
> > >R4 and an eigrp external with a metric of 170. All other ospf routes
>are
> >on
> > >r4 as they should be, with a metric of 110
> > >
> > >Several clear ip route * does not correct the situation. I shut off
> > >redistribution, do a clear ip ospf proc on R1, verify that the route in
> > >question is an ospf route on r4, reconfigure redistribution, and now
> > >everything is as it should be. I add redistribution back onto r3. The
> >route
> > >in question remains an ospf route. I check the output of debug ip
> >routing,
> > >and see that the ospf route is replacing the redistribute and now EIGRP
> > >route in R4's table.
> > >
> > >I can derive no good explanation. If I recall how I built the lab
> > >correctly,
> > >it is true I did not add OSPF to R4 until last, after redistribution
>was
> >in
> > >place on r3. So the eigrp route would have been in r4's table already.
> >But
> > >then, so were all of the other ospf routes, and when ospf was built,
>they
> > >appeared as ospf routes on r4
> > >
> > >I'm a bit puzzled by this. And open to a rational explanation.
> > >
> > >Chuck
> > >----------------------
> > >I am Locutus, a CCIE Lab Proctor. Xx_Brain_dumps_xX are futile. Your
>life
> > >as
> > >it has been is over ( if you hope to pass ) From this time forward, you
> > >will
> > >study US!
> > >( apologies to the folks at Star Trek TNG )
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:17 GMT-3