From: frank wells (fwells12@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 17:03:35 GMT-3
Mine wasn't a problem, more of a discovery. I didn't post it at the time
because I searched the archives for previous cases of OSPF/EIGRP
redistribution. I seem to remember finding the answer but I cannot find it
now. If I do find it, I will post a link to it.
>From: "Chuck Larrieu" <chuck@cl.cncdsl.com>
>To: "frank wells" <fwells12@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: route artifact revisited
>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:54:22 -0800
>
>I hope you plan on posting yours. Or have you already? In the archives
>around what date?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>frank wells
>Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:38 AM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: route artifact revisited
>
>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