From: scott mann (smann0762@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Dec 16 2001 - 17:48:42 GMT-3
My simple solution for this problem using 12.1.10 is as follows;
router ospf 10
summary-address x.x.x.0 255.255.255.0
network x.x.x.x 0.0.0.15
router ospf 20
redistribute ospf 10 subnets metric 100
router igrp 10
redistribute ospf 10 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500
redistribute ospf 20 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500 route-map o2i
route-map o2i
match ip address 10
access-list 10 permit x.x.x.0 0.0.0.0
Works for me perfectly (OSPF longer match into RIP or IGRP)
>From: Jim Brown <Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>
>Reply-To: Jim Brown <Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>
>To: "'Chris Larson'" <clarson52@home.com>, EA Louie <elouie@yahoo.com>,
> "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
>Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:28:46 -0700
>
>The summary-address command is technically for summarization INTO OSPF. The
>inverse of summarization from OSPF into another routing protocol is an
>undocumented anomaly that I can only make work on an inconsistent basis.
>
>Therefore, the removal of the behavior in recent IOS releases doesn't
>require a mention in the caveats if Cisco never intended it to be used in
>this manner.
>
>I personally don't believe Cisco would expect you to use
>undocumented/temperamental solutions to solve a problem in the lab. The lab
>is for logical solutions that identify your understanding of the protocols
>and not just your ability to configure routers with Cisco commands. If you
>don't understand how the protocols work you will get burned.
>
>I would concentrate on the known, documented, and expected solutions to the
>redistribution problem such as default-network specification, ABR
>area-range
>summarization, or default network injection for the various protocols.
>
>This is in no way a slam to John N., but I doubt Cisco would expect you to
>use tunnels to solve this redistribution problem. The value from his
>experiments is the intimate knowledge of the protocols he as gained through
>his tests.
>
>Be the packet, think like a router, and pass the lab. I think this might my
>new motto.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Larson [mailto:clarson52@home.com]
>Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 11:54 AM
>To: EA Louie; Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
>
>
>I have seen posts saying that summary-address does not work in 12.1 or
>12.2?
>I have 12.0 still and am using it for my studies until I can upgrade. I am
>wondering about this summary-address thing. I have read the caveats and do
>not see it mentioned so I feel that it has to work or Cisco would have
>surely mentioned it but keep seeing posts that say otherwise.
>
>Can you shed some light on this?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "EA Louie" <elouie@yahoo.com>
>To: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:31 PM
>Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
>
>
> > did you try breaking the /22 into 4 area ranges? It's messy, but I'm
> > betting it would work
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
> > To: "'EA Louie '" <elouie@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:10 PM
> > Subject: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> >
> >
> > > This appears to be a solution designed for when the OSPF subnet is
> > smaller,
> > > such as getting a /28 from OSPF to a /24 in IGRP, and they are not
> > > part
>of
> > > the same classful network. This works no problem for me using
> > > either
>the
> > > summary-address or area range command, thanks for the link. I am
> > > trying to put a route of 147.1.77.0/24, which is a subset of the
> > > 147.1.76.0/22 that is actually on the interface. It might help if I
>give
> > a
> > > more detailed explanation.
> > > I have a frame cloud, each interface on the frame cloud is
>147.1.77.x/22,
> > > these are in OSPF. I have an IGRP router connected to one of the
> > > OSPF routers, it's interface IP is 147.1.5.1/24. So, the OSPF
> > > router will
>not
> > > send 147.1.76.0/22 down to the IGRP neighbor because the subnet mask
> > > is larger than that on the IGRP interface and they are part of the
> > > same
>major
> > > network. I tried making the ospf router an ABR and using area
> > > range,
> > still
> > > doesn't work, I have tried it using 147.1.77.0/24, and
> > > 147.1.64.0/19, neither of them get advertised to the IGRP router.
> > > Anyone know of a way
> > to
> > > get these routes in if they are part of the same major network?
> > > This
> > would
> > > break one of the rules of IGRP, so I am wondering if it can be done,
>this
> > is
> > > from a fatkid.com lab that gives the solution as the summary-address
> > > command, which doesn't work in recent IOS. Thanks.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: EA Louie
> > > To: Lupi, Guy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Sent: 12/13/2001 8:53 PM
> > > Subject: Re: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> > >
> > > Steve Feldberg gave us an elegant solution using 'area range' and
> > > the only catch was the introduction of an additional area (making
> > > the ASBR an ABR as
> > > well). The summary-address command works okay in 12.0, but not in
>12.1,
> > > and
> > > apparently, not in 12.2 either.
> > >
> > > here's the link
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200112/msg00148.html
> > > (watch the URL wrap)
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:14 PM
> > > Subject: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ok, before I start I have searched the archives and found 2
> > > > solutions,
> > > one
> > > > works in my lab and one does not. Here is the setup, one router
> > > running
> > > > OSPF and IGRP, it is an ASBR. One router running IGRP only. One
> > > > of
> > > the
> > > > interfaces on the ASBR is in 147.1.76.0/22, the interface
> > > > connected to
> > > the
> > > > IGRP router is in 147.1.5.0/24. Now I know that because they are
> > > > part
> > > of
> > > > the same classful network and the subnets are not the same the
> > > > OSPF
> > > router
> > > > will not advertise the 147.1.76.0/22 network. I found 2 solutions
> > > > to
> > > this,
> > > > a "summary-address 147.1.77.0 255.255.255.0" in the OSPF config
> > > > which
> > > does
> > > > not seem to work for me, and the other solution is a route map on
> > > > the
> > > IGRP
> > > > only router specifying the next hop address for the networks that
> > > > I am trying to reach. While the route map works, it does not put
> > > > the
> > > routes in
> > > > the routing table on the IGRP router. I have heard that on some
> > > > IOS versions the summary address command does not work for
> > > > redistribution,
> > > I
> > > am
> > > > running 12.2(1b) on both routers. Sorry to open this can of worms
> > > again,
> > > > any help is, as always, appreciated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:43 GMT-3