From: scott mann (smann0762@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Dec 16 2001 - 20:53:02 GMT-3
Oops. The summary address goes under the second ospf process..
Sorry, just looked at my config.
>From: "scott mann" <smann0762@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: "scott mann" <smann0762@hotmail.com>
>To: Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com, clarson52@home.com, elouie@yahoo.com,
>Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution
>Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 12:48:42 -0800
>
>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 - 10:32:44 GMT-3