From: ying chang (ying_c@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 00:36:04 GMT-3
I have the book. In Doyle's "Case Study: Multiple Redistribution Points" (pp
787-794) shows #1 would break the redundancy. If redundancy is the reason
why you use multi-redistribution points, you probably should consider #2.
Chang
>From: "Mas Kato" <loomis_towcar@speedracer.com>
>Reply-To: "Mas Kato" <loomis_towcar@speedracer.com>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com, prospectccie@yahoo.com
>Subject: RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
>Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:55:21 -0700
>
>[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text]
>#1, for me, by far and away because it offers the greatest degree of
>control.
>
>I don't have Doyle's handy at the moment, so I'm having difficulty making
>the leap between administrative 'distance' and redundancy in a looped
>environment. Typically 'distance' is used to arbitrarily prefer routes from
>a given routing protocol because you know it offers better routes for the
>given topological constraints.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mas Kato
>https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
>
> >Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 16:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
> > Jack S <prospectccie@yahoo.com> Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
>ccielab@groupstudy.comReply-To: Jack S <prospectccie@yahoo.com>
> >
> >Hi,
> >What is the best way to tackle redistribution in a
> >topology involving loops? i.e., in a domain with
> >multiple redistribution points.
> >
> >1) Filter all routes so that only routes in that
> >domain are propagated
> >
> >2) Play with 'distance' command as described in
> >doyle's book so that redundancy is there in the
> >network.
> >
> >The 1st method is the easiest and the 2nd involves
> >careful configuration.
> >
> >Please advise what method to follow.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jack
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:50 GMT-3