From: routerjocky (elouie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 02:06:09 GMT-3
That's a good question, and it's because OSPF and ISIS need to have
identical link state tables throughout an area. It's a pretty basic
fundamental principle of link-state protocols. There is no "functional
equivalent" in OSPF and ISIS themselves, which is why you need to learn
distribute-list out from other RPs into OSPF and ISIS. You can use
distribute-list out FROM OSPF because it's how the routes LEAVE OSPF into
another RP, thus controlling which OSPF routes are redistributed out to
another RP.
Did you get the point about distribute-list in/out earlier, Albert? Good
luck in learning to use distribute-list, and keep practicing it. Route-maps
are next ;-)
-e-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Lu" <albert_ccie@yahoo.com>
To: "'routerjocky'" <elouie@yahoo.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Fatkid lab 360 - Redistribution Question
> I read that the distribute-list in command is not available for IS-IS and
> OSPF. So how does they do what is functionally equivalent to that command?
> Do they use a distribute out <process> instead?
>
> Why isn't it available for OSPF? Is it because OSPF doesn't do full
updates,
> only incremental updates when needed?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> routerjocky
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 12:23 PM
> To: Albert Lu; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Fatkid lab 360 - Redistribution Question
>
>
> 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