From: Mannan Venkatesan (venkat_m@xxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 15:49:21 GMT-3
Ramesh,
I used the same mask as Julie used (170.100.0.0 0.0.255.255). The only
difference is she used a standard acl but I used an extended acl.
With std acl, 170.100.0.0 0.0.255.255 is source address and with it, you can
ping ospf routes only from r5 but not from r6. Ping failed from r5 when I
used 171.100.1.1 (r5 serial ip address to r6 link) as source address.
And your are right, had I configured any other 170.100.0.0 subnets locally
on r5, then I should be more specific with acl for policy routing.
Just FYI, I used 171.100.0.0 network between r5 and r6.
Mannan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ramesh Ramasamy" <ramesh_ramasamy@hotmail.com>
To: <venkat_m@ins.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: requesting-more-specific-info-pls - OSPF/IGRP/BGP
> Hi Mannan,
>
> I got the picture now.
>
> The ospf/igrp - r4 - doesnt need the default-network anymore - to send
> def.route to r5(running bgp 'aggre...sum'). Maybe this is one more way
> of getting the r5/similar igrp router to reach inside / rest of the nw!
> Of course I havent tested this yet.
>
> The only diff from Julie Ann Connary's scenario and yours is the mask.
> So as she has explained - in your scenario - you will need a diff acl's
> inverse mask.
>
> So, when we need get a non- /8 - route to be reached from r5 into
> r4/ospf cloud, the r5 should run the 'ip local-policy' with ALL the
> required 'acl's' for ALL the networks to be reached. The req hits the
> local policy and if none of them (remote add) matches then it goes to
> the 'aggregate add' - to the EBGP.
>
> Good work Julie Ann Connary. Correct me if am wrong.
>
> Thanks,
> Ramesh.
>
> >From: "Mannan Venkatesan" <venkat_m@ins.com>
> >Reply-To: "Mannan Venkatesan" <venkat_m@ins.com>
> >To: "Ramesh Ramasamy" <ramesh_ramasamy@hotmail.com>
> >CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: Re: requesting-more-specific-info-pls - OSPF/IGRP/BGP
> >Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:28:30 -0400
> >
> >Ok, this is the scenario,
> > R3----------R4---------------R5----------------R6
> >Ospf Ospf/Igrp Igrp/Bgp Bgp
> >
> >I used a class B network,
> >
> >OSPF - /24,/25,29,etc
> >IGRP - /24
> >So, I used a class C address as default network on R4 which was injected
on
> >R5. Life is cool. Then I aggregated /16 network on r5 for r6 which
created
> >a
> >/16 ->null0 summary route on R5. Because of that I couldn't ping any ospf
> >networks from r5. There are 2 solutions(atleast) for this.
> >1. Filter the summary route by using dist-list in under BGP. For this
> >solution, you definitely need the default network.
> >2. Use policy routing on R5, any packet to ospf network which are not
> >local,
> >send it to r4-r5 serial interface. I am not sure do we need
> >'default-network' statement for this solution. I have to test it.
> >
> >Any comments,
> >
> >Mannan
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ramesh Ramasamy" <ramesh_ramasamy@hotmail.com>
> >To: <venkat_m@ins.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:26 PM
> >Subject: requesting-more-specific-info-pls
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I think i missed a few threads on this.
> > >
> > > Pls do comment my understanding of the general scenario.
> > > 1.I put 'ip default-network classfullIPadd' on r1-router, for igrp
> > > remote r2-rtr to get gw of last resort.
> > > 2.The same r1-rtr - is being configured - with bgp. Requirement
> > > states that we should get a 'aggregate address' from this r1-router to
> > > the next. This messes the 'ip default-network' ??
> > >
> > > So per Julie's mail we could put a ip local policy.... onto the
> > > serial between r1 - r2 ?
> > > a.on r1 or r2 ?
> > > b.will we still need a 'ip default-network' statement? if we have bgp
> > > working?
> > >
> > > Maybe am missing something here.
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > > Regards,
> > > Ramesh.
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Mannan Venkatesan" <venkat_m@ins.com>
> > > >Reply-To: "Mannan Venkatesan" <venkat_m@ins.com>
> > > >To: "Rob Hopkins" <rshopkins@earthlink.net>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > >Subject: Re: BGP aggregates and IGRP default networks - policy
routing
> >is
> > > >the answer
> > > >Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 12:12:24 -0400
> > > >
> > > >Little confusion with my scenario. It is like this,
> > > >
> > > > R3--------------R4-------------------R5---------------------R6
> > > >Ospf Ospf/Igrp Igrp/Bgp
> > > >Bgp
> > > >
> > > >Default network showed in R5 routing table, BGP summary route showed
in
> >R6
> > > >routing table. And you are right, no default network in r4 routing.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Mannan
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Rob Hopkins" <rshopkins@earthlink.net>
> > > >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > >Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:02 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: BGP aggregates and IGRP default networks - policy
routing
> >is
> > > >the answer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > maybe it was a typo but the default network doesnt show in your r4
> > > >routing
> > > > > table...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Mannan Venkatesan" <venkat_m@ins.com>
> > > > > To: "Connary, Julie Ann" <jconnary@cisco.com>;
> ><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 6:23 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: BGP aggregates and IGRP default networks - policy
> >routing
> > > >is
> > > > > the answer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > I was trying this config with policy routing. Have a comment.
> >Correct
> > > >me
> > > > > if
> > > > > > I am wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I used 171.100 network between BGP peers(R5 and R6). So, with
> >standard
> > > > > > acces-list for the policy routing, I couldn't ping OSPF routes
> >from
> > > >R6(bgp
> > > > > > nei of R5). After pulling my hair for a while, I configured an
> >ext.
> > > > > > access-list for policy routing which did the trick.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'access-list 101 permit ip any 170.100.0.0 0.0.255.255'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mannan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Connary, Julie Ann" <jconnary@cisco.com>
> > > > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: BGP aggregates and IGRP default networks - policy
> >routing
> > > >is
> > > > > > the answer
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > solved my own problem - policy routing!!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I set up a route-map that anything that matched 170.100.0.0
would
> >be
> > > > > policy
> > > > > > routed to
> > > > > > next hop ip 170.100.1.5. I then enabled local policy routing -
so
> >now
> > > > > > everything destined for 170.100.0.0 is policy routed before it
> >hits
> > > >the
> > > > > > route-table and my
> > > > > > BGP aggregate route is no longer a problem. Don't forget to
policy
> > > >route
> > > > > > any interfaces so if you have
> > > > > > to ping "through" this router that it works.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > route-map subnets, permit, sequence 10
> > > > > > Match clauses:
> > > > > > ip address (access-lists): 5
> > > > > > Set clauses:
> > > > > > ip next-hop 170.100.1.5
> > > > > > Policy routing matches: 93 packets, 6479 bytes
> > > > > > Standard IP access list 5
> > > > > > permit 170.100.0.0, wildcard bits 0.0.255.255
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ip local policy route-map subnets
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now if I turn on debug ip policy and ping 170.100.42.241 I get:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: route map subnets, item 10, permit
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=170.100.42.241 (Serial0),
len
> >100,
> > > > > > policy ro
> > > > > > uted
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: local to Serial0 170.100.1.5
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=170.100.42.241, len 100,
> >policy
> > > >match
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: route map subnets, item 10, permit
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=170.100.42.241 (Serial0),
len
> >100,
> > > > > > policy ro
> > > > > > uted
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: local to Serial0 170.100.1.5
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=170.100.42.241, len 100,
> >policy
> > > >match
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: route map subnets, item 10, permit
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=170.100.42.241 (Serial0),
len
> >100,
> > > > > > policy ro
> > > > > > uted
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: local to Serial0 170.100.1.5
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=255.255.255.255, len 46,
> >policy
> > > >match
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: route map subnets, item 10, permit
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: s=170.100.1.4 (local), d=255.255.255.255 (Serial0),
len
> >46,
> > > > > > policy ro
> > > > > > uted
> > > > > > 1d22h: IP: local to Serial0 170.100.1.5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julie Ann
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 10:50 AM 1/15/2001 -0500, Connary, Julie Ann wrote:
> > > > > > >Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I have one I cannot figure out. I have an IGRP router that is
> >using
> >a
> > > > > > >default-network to
> > > > > > >overcome subnet mask length differences into my OSPF network.
> >Works
> > > >great
> > > > > > >until I
> > > > > > >did the BGP part of the lab which requires an aggregate
address.
> >The
> > > > > > >aggregate address puts
> > > > > > >a static route to null 0 in my routing table and I can no
longer
> > > >default
> > > > > > >route to the OSPF network:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >OSPF Network with 24, 28 and 29 bit masks of 170.100.x.x
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > Router 5 - OSPF and IGRP
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > | 170.100.1.x/24
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > Frame-relay point-to-point link
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > |
> > > > > > > Router 4 - running IGRP and BGP
> > > > > > > ip default-network 200.0.5.0
> > > > > > > router bgp 5
> > > > > > > no auto-summary
> > > > > > > network 170.100.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0
> > > > > > > aggregate-address 170.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
> >summary-only
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Now I get the following routing table on R4 and cannot get to
any
> >of
> > > >the
> > > > > > >non 24 bit subnets in OSPF.
> > > > > > >How do I fix WITHOUT using static routes on R5 that "summarize"
> >the
> > > >28
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >29 bit subnets to
> > > > > > >24 bits and redistribute them into IGRP. Can I stop the
aggregate
> > > >address
> > > > > > >from being entered into
> > > > > > >R4's routing table. I really only want to advertise that
> >aggregate
> >to
> > > >my
> > > > > > >EBGP neighbor anyways.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Gateway of last resort is 170.100.1.5 to network 210.0.5.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 170.100.0.0/24 is subnetted, 9 subnets
> > > > > > >C 170.100.200.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.233.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:03,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.129.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:03,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.150.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:03,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.68.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:03,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.67.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:03,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.64.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:04,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >I 170.100.65.0 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:04,
> >Serial0
> > > > > > >C 170.100.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0
> > > > > > > 1.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
> > > > > > >C 1.1.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
> > > > > > >I* 210.0.5.0/24 [100/10476] via 170.100.1.5, 00:01:04,
Serial0
> > > > > > >B 205.15.150.0/24 [20/0] via 170.100.200.7, 1d18h
> > > > > > >B 170.0.0.0/8 [200/0] via 0.0.0.0, 1d18h, Null0
> > > ><---------------this
> > > > > > >entry is stopping my default-network from being usefull.
> > > > > > >tserve#ping 170.100.42.241
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Type escape sequence to abort.
> > > > > > >Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.100.42.241, timeout is 2
> > > >seconds:
> > > > > > >.....
> > > > > > >Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
> > > > > > >tserve#
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > **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 - 10:29:57 GMT-3