From: routerjocky (elouie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2001 - 23:22:50 GMT-3
there are many ways to do route filtering. do you know why it doesn't work?
you might have the logic of the distribute-list command reversed...try a
debug ip igrp and debug rip on R1 to see if you can find the problem.
here's how I remember:
in means don't allow the route to come *in* to the RP
out means don't allow the route to be advertised *out* of the RP
one other solution would be distribute-list out interface from rip on R3
the other would be the solution that FatKid came up with which is filter at
the router receiving the routes. use whatever is easier for you, but make
sure it works.
keep practicing distribute-list out until you get the hang of it, though...
it does work well in some situations
-e-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Lu" <albert_ccie@yahoo.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:51 PM
Subject: Fatkid lab 360 - Redistribution Question
> Hello Group,
>
> I'm working on the redistribution lab, and I got a question on the way the
> distribute-list was done. You can take a look at the solution at
>
> http://www.fatkid.com/html/360_redistribution.html
>
> It uses 'distribute-list 1 in' to deny the 204.1.4.0 network from rip.
>
> How I did it was to use 'distribute-list 1 out rip' in the igrp section,
in
> other-words not letting rip redistribute the network 204.1.4.0 into igrp.
I
> also applied a 'distribute-list 1 out igrp 10' in the rip section to no
let
> igrp redistribute the network 204.1.4.0 into rip. Since the network is
part
> of both routing protocols, they should keep it to themselves and not tell
> each other.
>
> However, this doesn't seem to work. I'm getting a routing loop that goes
> from R1 to R2 to R4 back to R1.
>
> Albert
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:25 GMT-3