From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 23:01:53 GMT-3
It sound to me that at the bottom line, we need conduct tests base on
what is in your mind, then analyse the results to confirm of what you
think, discuss with the group on what suppose to be..
Regards
Parry
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Davis [mailto:miked@netrus.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:22 AM
To: Howard C. Berkowitz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: How route redistribution EXACTLY works --- need
confirmation
Great thread James. I like questions that challenge assumptions. What
is
it they say about assumptions?!
Howard, I think, as you said before, we won't know definititively how
IOS
does this without a thorough review of souce code. Though I'm sure Cisco
won't be sharing those details with us. ;-) I've just tried to describe,
from a pragmatic standpoint, the behavior I've experienced.
Your mileage may vary!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:22 PM
Subject: RE: How route redistribution EXACTLY works --- need
confirmation
> >Mike:
> >
> >I like the condition you added, which is "routes eligible for the
RIB". I
> >think, you mean another routing source, which has lower adminstrative
> >distance, didn't inject the same route into routing table.
> >
> >For ospf, when you say the routing bit set, do you mean the routes
resulted
> >from SPF, and also in the RIB? In other words, any route which does
not
> >exist in the routing table will not be redistributed?
>
> That is definitely the case for BGP; it's part of loop prevention.
> BGP will also not announce a route that has a next hop that cannot be
> resolved in the RIB.
>
> I don't know definitively if that's done in Cisco's IGPs, but, in
> general, it is a basic principle of avoiding loops.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:24 GMT-3