From: Jack S (prospectccie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 04:35:30 GMT-3
Thankyou Mas & Ying.
Yes, #2 is definitely a better design. But is this
needed? If the question in Lab doesn't explicitely ask
for any redundancy, is it worth taking the pains to
configure it? Both #1 & #1 works anyway right?
-Jag
--- ying chang <ying_c@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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