From: Lupi, Guy (Guy.Lupi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 12:27:55 GMT-3
Ok, I see what you are saying, I know about those also, I thought we were
talking strictly summary address and area range, no additional interface
IP's or tunnels. Thanks for the help.
~-----Original Message-----
~From: DAN DORTON [mailto:DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us]
~Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:21 AM
~To: jbanner@cisco.com; rodrigo.silva@cpm.com.br; Lupi, Guy;
~ccielab@groupstudy.com
~Subject: RE: solie skinet lab - and the old topic ospf-igrp
~
~
~There are lots of ways & you should know them all.
~
~secondaries, tunnels, redistributing connected loopbacks with
~summary-addresses, area range commands.
~
~Some will work in some scenarios & not in others.
~
~In my personal preferences the dual OSPF processes would be my last
~choice, but then I see a lot of people using this method.
~
~I can say this... Under certain circumstances you will NOT have the
~luxury of being able to use all your preffered methods.
~
~Anyways, I can see a couple of easier ways to do this... Can you?
~
~P.S. I gave you the answers above.
~
~Dan
~
~>>> "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com> 02/08/02 09:09AM >>>
~But what other way would you do it if you were told that the routes had
~to
~appear in Router B's table? I know it would be much easier to get a
~default
~route in there if it was allowed, but what if it wasn't?
~
~~-----Original Message-----
~~From: DAN DORTON [mailto:DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us]
~~Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:07 AM
~~To: jbanner@cisco.com; rodrigo.silva@cpm.com.br; Lupi, Guy;
~~ccielab@groupstudy.com
~~Subject: RE: solie skinet lab - and the old topic ospf-igrp
~~
~~
~~The question is... Why bother going through so much trouble to get
~the
~~routes there that way? ;-)
~~
~~>>> "Lupi, Guy" <Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com> 02/07/02 06:52PM >>>
~~Ok, I see that this works, but I am having trouble understanding why.
~
~~Could
~~someone explain this to me with a little detail. Lets say I have the
~~following:
~~
~~ OSPF Area 0
~~ 165.10.11.0/25
~~ |
~~ |
~~ RouterA------IGRP 165.10.26.0/24-------RouterB
~~ |
~~ |
~~ |
~~ OSPF Area 0
~~ 165.10.7.0/24
~~ |
~~ | OSPF Area 0
~~ RouterC--------165.10.185.0/26
~~
~~
~~All interfaces are in OSPF area 0 except for the one to Router B, so
~~Router
~~A gets the routes for everything, Router B is restricted to /24's
~~within the
~~165.10.0.0 network. I can do a summary address 165.10.11.0/24 under
~~the
~~original OSPF process and Router B gets it, but it will not get
~~165.10.185.0/24 until I do a second routing process, like OSPF 10,
~~redistribute the original process into this one, do a summary address
~~for
~~165.10.185.0/24 in the second process, and redistribute both
~processes
~~into
~~IGRP. I am having trouble understanding why, if both the 165.10.11.0
~~and
~~165.10.185.0 are OSPF internal routes, what is the difference, why
~~does
~~redistributing into the other process work? Sorry for the long
~email,
~~but I
~~really want to understand this.
~~
~~
~~~-----Original Message-----
~~~From: S. John Banner [mailto:jbanner@cisco.com]
~~~Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:08 PM
~~~To: Rodrigo Espinha T Da Silva; ccielab@groupstudy.com
~~~Subject: RE: solie skinet lab - and the old topic ospf-igrp
~~~
~~~
~~~ To get this to work (I did it yesterday), redistribute all
~~~OSPF routes
~~~into the second OSPF process, which makes them all External
~~~routes, and as
~~~such not redistributable (the original OSPF routes are
~~redistributable
~~~because they are internal and thus prefered over the external
~~~routes and
~~~thus appear in the routing table). Then use "summary-address"
~~~to summarize
~~~in the second OSPF process. These summarized routes show up
~~~in the routing
~~~table (because that is the only place they appear) and are thus
~~~redistributable. Finally, redistribute *BOTH* OSPF processes
~~~into IGRP (and
~~~make sure that IGRP has a higher admin distance than OSPF or
~~~everything will
~~~break).
~~~ Also, make sure that you don't redistribute the summaries
~~~back into OSPF
~~~as that will cause nasty problems...
~~~
~~~ sjb.
~~~
~~~> -----Original Message-----
~~~> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On
~~~Behalf Of
~~~> Rodrigo Espinha T Da Silva
~~~> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:29 AM
~~~> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
~~~> Subject: solie skinet lab - and the old topic ospf-igrp
~~~>
~~~>
~~~> Hi Guys,
~~~>
~~~> I did the skynet and still have the problem with redistribution
~~~> between ospf
~~~> and igrp :
~~~>
~~~> regardind the mask /28 ospf to /24 igrp , the solution
~~~discussed in email
~~~> before ( 25/jan untilll 29/jan ) regarding create another
~~~ospf process and
~~~> use the summary adrress comand works perfect, I tried to
~~~create in the R3
~~~> router and ABR configuring the loopback in another area , works
~~~> for the ospf
~~~> database , i can see an summarized network geneated for the
~~~area 0 range
~~~> command in R1 , but does'nt solve the redistr problem ( help ).
~~~>
~~~>
~~~> I can't find a solution for /28 ospf to /24 igrp ( reverse
~~~> summarization ),
~~~> someone can send me an numeric example.
~~~> help!
~~~>
~~~> challenge day : 27/fev
~~~>
~~~> thanks in advance
~~~>
~~~> Rodrigo E. Teixeira da Silva
~~~>
~~~>
~~~> Rodrigo E. Teixeira da Silva
~~~> CPM Comunicacoes
~~~> Analista de Suporte Tecnico
~~~> CCNP Lan & Wan Certified.
~~~> Phone: + 55-11-4196-0793
~~~> Fax: + 55-11-4196-0900
~~~> Call Dispach: 0800-117239
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:15 GMT-3