From: xh_liu (xh_liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Apr 22 2001 - 05:36:34 GMT-3
Hi,
>From your debug information:
> 19:25:55: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
> 19:25:55: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
why [110/200],not [110/100],it is E2 metric type? and where is 192.168.5.3,
it should be 192.168.3.2? and followed 192.168.6.1 should be 192.168.2.1
if you contruct the test lab by P.787?
Perhaps it is not important because you only want to test the question.
Well, I am interested in the question too.
> 19:26:01: RT: del 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:01: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
> 19:26:21: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.6.1, rip metric [120/1]
> 19:26:21: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
> 19:26:21: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:26: RT: del 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:26: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
> 19:26:50: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.6.1, rip metric [120/1]
> 19:26:50: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
> 19:26:50: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:55: RT: del 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:55: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
> 19:27:18: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.6.1, rip metric [120/1]
> 19:27:18: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
----- Original Message -----
From: Zhang Hui <zhanghui@wpsb.com.cn>
To: CCIELIST (E-mail) <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: what's happening in <Doyle>'s redistributing and routing filter sectio
n
> Hi,all:
>
> I was doing the Case study:Multiple Redistribute Point at P.787 in <doyle>
> and found a strange question.
>
> I think there should be two O E2 route item in Bumbe's routing table at P.789
> Figure 13.13,
> one is O E2 192.168.6.0/24 [110/100] via 192.168.3.2
> the other is O E2 192.168.1.0/24 [110/100] via 192.168.3.2
>
> But there is just only one tagged with O E2 in <Doyle> the other was tagged w
ith
> R !!
>
> Why Bumbe refuse to add the O E2 192.168.1.0/24 [110/100] via 192.168.3.2
> to it's routing table instead of R 192.168.1.0/24 [110/100] via 192.168.2.1 ?
> After all, the administrative distance of OSPF is smaller than RIP's !!!
>
> When I turn on debug ip routing , the following debug message appeared and no
t
> stop.
>
> Thanks
> Zhang Hui
> -------
> 19:25:55: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
> 19:25:55: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:01: RT: del 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:01: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
> 19:26:21: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.6.1, rip metric [120/1]
> 19:26:21: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
> 19:26:21: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:26: RT: del 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:26: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
> 19:26:50: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.6.1, rip metric [120/1]
> 19:26:50: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
> 19:26:50: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:55: RT: del 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.5.3, ospf metric [110/200]
> 19:26:55: RT: delete network route to 192.168.1.0
> 19:27:18: RT: add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.6.1, rip metric [120/1]
> 19:27:18: RT: closer admin distance for 192.168.1.0, flushing 1 routes
>
> ......
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:53 GMT-3