From: Roman Rodichev (rodic000@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 20 2001 - 16:56:06 GMT-3
Raymond, it makes sense to do mutual redistribution on both R1 and R6. What
happens if IBGP is brought down. AS1 (i forgot the number, that's the one
with R7) will have no way of knowing OSPF routes.
i.e. let's say R6 is rebooted, how will R7 know about Ethernet connection on
R5?
>From: "rsevier" <rsevier@zealousolutions.com>
>To: "Roman Rodichev" <rodic000@hotmail.com>, <kenyeo@email.com>,
><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
>Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:30:07 -0700
>
>I agree that bgp always-compare-med is not needed. however, I have another
>one for you. Does there need to be redistribution on r1 of ospf into bgp.
>I know that redistribution of bgp into ospf is needed. I have just
>completed 8a and didn't find a reason to for the redistribution on r1 of
>ospf into bgp. Our solution worked fine with out it because of the it is
>being redistributed on r6. Can I get any input as to why it is in the
>answers from Marc.
>
>thanks in advance
>Raymond
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Roman Rodichev
>Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:31 PM
>To: kenyeo@email.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
>
>
>I thought so too
>
>
> >From: "Ken Yeo" <kenyeo@email.com>
> >Reply-To: "Ken Yeo" <kenyeo@email.com>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
> >Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:06:44 -0500
> >
> >on r1
> >
> >I believe bgp always-compare-med is not needed.
> >
> >Anyone can comfirm that?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >Ken Yeo
> >**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:46 GMT-3