From: Mohamed Heeba (MAHeeba@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat May 12 2001 - 04:09:49 GMT-3
HI mas ;
let me have some share here ..im also running on the summary-address command
torture over here
my notes about this command is ,it do install the null0 static route in the
routing table BUT this will not happen before you do something like "redist
igrp 1 SUBNETS" ..even when u do "redist igrp 1" only this null0 will not
appear in the routing table ..aslo it will not affected by redist in the
other direction.ie without doing mutual redistribution .
feel that the OSPF will propagate this command only when it has external
routes redist INTO it.
now i have a question here ,DO we really need to put filters if we have only
one point of redistribution and we are doing mutual redist....OR it is only
needed when we have TWO points of redistribution
thx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mas Kato [SMTP:tealp729@home.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 3:11 PM
> To: 'CCIELAB'
> Subject: OSPF summary-address--The beat goes on...
>
> (edited)
>
> Manuel,
>
> Thank you! Now we're getting somewhere! But the plot thickens...
>
> I back-dated my lab to 12.0(17) and pasted in your config.
>
> Here's the view from R2:
>
> 172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 7 subnets, 3 masks
> C 172.16.4.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
> I 172.16.5.0/24 [100/8976] via 172.16.4.2, 00:00:33, Serial0/0
> O 172.16.1.1/32 [110/65] via 172.16.2.1, 00:02:57, Serial0/3
> O 172.16.2.0/24 is a summary, 00:03:22, Null0
> C 172.16.2.0/28 is directly connected, Serial0/3
> O 172.16.3.0/24 is a summary, 00:03:22, Null0
> C 172.16.3.0/28 is directly connected, Loopback0
> R1-2#sh ip ospf summ
>
> OSPF Process 2, Summary-address
>
> 172.16.1.0/255.255.255.0 Metric 16777215, Type 0, Tag 0
> 172.16.2.0/255.255.255.0 Metric 20, Type 2, Tag 0
> 172.16.3.0/255.255.255.0 Metric 20, Type 2, Tag 0
> ...
>
> As you can see, the loopback route from R1 didn't make it.
>
> But you've led me on to something. I'm wary of doing mutual
> redistribution without some form of filtering:
>
> router ospf 2
> redistribute igrp 10 subnets route-map IGRP2OSPF
> !
> access-list 1 permit 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 1 permit 172.16.5.0 0.0.0.255
> route-map IGRP2OSPF permit 10
> match ip address 1
> !
>
> 172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 5 subnets, 2 masks
> C 172.16.4.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0/0
> I 172.16.5.0/24 [100/8976] via 172.16.4.2, 00:00:04, Serial0/0
> O 172.16.1.0/28 [110/65] via 172.16.2.1, 00:11:36, Serial0/3
> C 172.16.2.0/28 is directly connected, Serial0/3
> C 172.16.3.0/28 is directly connected, Loopback0
> R1-2#
> R1-2#sh ip ospf summ
>
> OSPF Process 2, Summary-address
>
> 172.16.1.0/255.255.255.0 Metric 16777215, Type 0, Tag 0
> 172.16.2.0/255.255.255.0 Metric 16777215, Type 0, Tag 0
> 172.16.3.0/255.255.255.0 Metric 16777215, Type 0, Tag 0
> R1-2#
> ...
>
> So! It must have something to do with my filtering. But what I don't
> understand is, the routes I'm filtering originate in OSPF... Perhaps it
> has something to do with the classful summary presented to IGRP for
> those routes?
>
> I'm going to do some further testing...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mas Kato
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel Ratnakumar [mailto:manuelr@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:57 PM
> To: KATO,MAS (HP-USA,ex3)
> Cc: Attachment
> Subject: B382815
>
>
> Hi Mas,
> Guess what? The command summary address also works for out ospf. The
> behaviour changes when you put the default metric while redistributing
> ospf
> into igrp. Please refer to the configuration that i have attached for
> more
> details.
> Please disregard my previous email explanation about the working of
> summary
> address command out ospf.
> Email me if you want to discsus further on this.
> Thanks and Best Regards
> Manuel Ratnakumar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KATO,MAS (HP-USA,ex3)
> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2001 6:02 AM
> To: Manuel Ratnakumar
> Subject: RE: B382815
>
>
> Manuel,
>
> So the summary route to null0 -did- install into the routing table?
> Interesting... I've never even seen that. What did 'show ip ospf
> summary'
> indicate for the summary metrics? Also, just out of curiosity, what
> default
> metric did you use when redistributing into IGRP?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mas Kato
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel Ratnakumar [mailto:manuelr@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:06 PM
> To: KATO,MAS (HP-USA,ex3)
> Cc: Attachment
> Subject: B382815
>
>
> Mas,
> I have tested the ospf summary command.
> I have used 11.2.26 and when you summarise the ospf routes into /24 it
> does
> install the route as ospf summary pointing to the null interface but
> when
> the redistribution happens the igrp process treats those routes as
> inaccessible and with metric 4294967295. See below for the debug igrp
> transaction.
>
> 02:25:17: IGRP: received update from 172.16.4.2 on Serial1
> 02:25:17: subnet 172.16.5.0, metric 8976 (neighbor 501)
> 02:25:33: IGRP: sending update to 255.255.255.255 via Loopback0
> (172.16.3.1)
> 02:25:33: subnet 172.16.2.0, metric=8476
> 02:25:33: IGRP: sending update to 255.255.255.255 via Serial1
> (172.16.4.1)
> 02:25:33: subnet 172.16.1.0, metric=4294967295
> 02:25:33: subnet 172.16.2.0, metric=4294967295
> 02:25:33: subnet 172.16.3.0, metric=4294967295
>
> So the R3 router will not know any routes from the ospf side (/28).
> I have also tried the right way which is, installing a static route for
> those summary networks and redistributing static on igrp. It works fine.
>
> 01:35:29: IGRP: sending update to 255.255.255.255 via Loopback0
> (172.16.3.1)
> 01:35:29: subnet 172.16.2.0, metric=8476
> 01:35:29: IGRP: sending update to 255.255.255.255 via Serial1
> (172.16.4.1)
> 01:35:29: subnet 172.16.1.0, metric=1
> 01:35:29: subnet 172.16.2.0, metric=4294967295
> 01:35:29: subnet 172.16.3.0, metric=4294967295
> 01:35:35: IGRP: received update from 172.16.4.2 on Serial1
> 01:35:35: subnet 172.16.5.0, metric 8976 (neighbor 501)
>
> ***** See network 172.16.1.0 ************
>
> I hope this results will clear all the doubts you had with summary
> address
> command.
>
> Is there anything else you want me to do. Feel free to call me or email
> me
> for any further assistance..
> Thanks and Regards
> Manuel Ratnakumar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KATO,MAS (HP-USA,ex3)
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2001 4:20 PM
> To: Manuel Ratnakumar
> Subject: RE: Case B382815 - *NSA*ETAC: Redistributing OSPF into Classful
> Routing Protocols
>
>
> Manuel,
>
> Yes, please. In fact, why not just test the oldest IOS still in GD.
>
> Here's a simple scenario:
>
> Major net is 172.16.0.0
>
> (R1)--OSPF/28--(R2)--IGRP/24--(R3)
>
> IGRP is passive on the R2's OSPF interface.
>
> A lot of people swear up and down that configuring a /24
> 'summary-address'
> for the /28 network under the OSPF process on R2 will install a null0
> route
> for the summary that will subsequently propagate to R3.
>
> When I try it with 12.0 and 12.1, 'show ip ospf summary' on R2 shows the
> summary with a very high metric and the null0 route is -not- installed,
> so
> the route, of course, never makes it to R3.
>
> Thanks very much, I really appreciate it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mas Kato
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel Ratnakumar [mailto:manuelr@cisco.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 5:40 PM
> To: KATO,MAS (HP-USA,ex3)
> Subject: RE: Case B382815 - *NSA*ETAC: Redistributing OSPF into Classful
> Routing Protocols
>
>
> Mas,
> Yes 11.2 is still in GD. Do you want me to test it for you ?
> Thanks and have a Great Week
> Manuel
> **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 - 10:30:40 GMT-3