From: Richard Wheat (rwheat@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 11:58:52 GMT-3
Michael,
I can't see that any extra configuration is necessarily required with ISIS
- EIGRP mutual
redistribution. The EIGRP internal/external default administrative
distances
take care of routing loop problems. Maybe someone can point out an issue
I have missed?
Hope this helps,
Richard.
michael robertson wrote:
> Hi, Group,
>
> I am stuck in Jeff's route filtering question, (jeff's
> book page 799. Question 5, 6, 7 and solution page 961
> and 962).
>
> I think that the solution for question 5 is
> unecessary because I am not sure why he put a distance
> command: distance 170 192.168.10.254 0.0.0.0 1
>
> I think that 192.168.10.254 is running EIGRP, and thus
> it is unnecessary to put the command under ISIS
> domain?
>
> Router C can learn the route from 192.168.10.254, but
> those routes are distributed in router C to ISIS, in
> this case, I will say that router C learn ISIS route
> from redistribution, not from 192.168.10.254.
>
> Same thing for router D.
>
> Question 6:
> it
> seems that the solution to Question 6 is wrong.i tried
> and it never
> works.
>
> The solution said that you have to configure
> dinstance under IS-IS domain with command
>
> distance 255 192.168.10.241 0.0.0.0 1
> access-list 1 permit any.
>
> I think that this is not correct because the first
> part of the question is to accept routes only from
> router A. In the solution, it doesn't show this part.
>
> i think that what the solution has done is just to
> answer the second part of the question. Once A fail. D
> will not accept any router from router B, But router D
> can still accept routes from router B from EIGRP
> domain which is not clearly answered by the solution.
>
> Any comments on this or what's the correct solution
>
> As always, your help is always appreciated
>
> Regards
>
> michael
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:14 GMT-3