From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Oct 23 2001 - 17:55:04 GMT-3
I've spoken with several Cisco Development Engineers and here's the
correct behavior regarding whether we redistribute directly connected
networks:
The correct behavior is to redistribute directly connected networks as
long as the network is covered by a network statement in the protocol to
be redistributed. It's a bug if the directly connected network isn't
redistribued in that situation. So the statement "we only redistribute
from the routing table" is incomplete, we redistribute routes from the
routing table and those directly connected networks covered by a network
statement in the protocol to be redistributed.
Example:
int e 0
ip add 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
int e 1
ip add 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
router rip
network 10.0.0.0
router ospf 1
network 10.2.2.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
redistribute rip metric 100 subnets
10.1.1.0 /24 is known as a directly connected route. But it's included
under the 10.0.0.0 network statement under router rip so the network is
flagged by rip and ospf will then redistribute the directly connected
network. You do not need to use "redistributed connected" unless you
don't have a network statement that doesn't cover the network on the
interface. So if ethernet 2 was 9.1.1.1, it wouldn't be redistributed
unless you use "redistribute connected" since 9.1.1.1 doesn't fall under
the 10.0.0.0 network statement. But it would be redistributed if you
had "network 9.0.0.0" under router rip also.
So the answer is any behaviour you see in earlier code where it doesn't
redistribute in this situaiton is a bug and where it does redistribute
in 12.1 and 12.2 is correct. This wasn't a change in behavior, just
bugs in earlier code where you saw the problem.
Please let me know if I've made a typo that changes the meaning and I'll
send out a correction, thanks.
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:24 GMT-3