From: Williams, Glenn (WILLIAMSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 10:38:03 GMT-3
This is a limitation of classless to classful protocols when doing
redistribution. Rip V2 would not have this problem.
Check:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/52.html
GW
-----Original Message-----
From: Engelhard M. Labiro [mailto:engelhard@netmarks.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 7:34 AM
To: donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Q. Redistribution from EIGRP to RIP
Hi Donny,
Regarding redistribution of EIGRP to RIP, thats the behaviour
of RIP as it compares its own mask with a route`s mask and
decides from there whether it should advertise the route
or just drop the route. See the following URL:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/54.html
Engelhard M. Labiro$B!!(J(engelhard@netmarks.co.jp)
Security Group, Technical Solution Center, Netmarks Inc.
2-13-34 Konan, Minato-Ku, Tokyo 108-0075
Tel: +81-3-5461-2575, Fax: +81-3-5461-2093
----- Original Message -----
From: <donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Q. Redistribution from EIGRP to RIP
> Dear All,
>
> I was reading Solie's book CCIE practical studies.
> on the chapter concerning RIP there is a sample of redistribution
> between RIP and EIGRP ( Figure 9.4 page 622)
> it says that if we were to redistribute route which is not having the
> same subnet mask from EIGRP to RIP, it wouln't show in the routing
> table of RIP. It puzzle me as to what is the reason behind this
> behaviour ?
> The diagram is something like
>
> E0/0-ip:128.200.1.2/24 rtr1 ---E0/1 IP:128.200.3.18/29 ---------
> E0-IP:128.200.3.17/29 rtr2
>
> rtr1 won't have network 128.200.3.0/29 in it's routing table.
>
> thanks
> Donny
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:03 GMT-3