From: Mas Kato (loomis_towcar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 05:19:38 GMT-3
[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text]
I guess I've gotta re-crack the book. But until then, please help me out.
If I'm injecting only native routes into an external autonomous system at two d
ifferent places, I lose redundancy?
Mas
> "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com> RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-overDate: Sat
, 04 May 2002 23:36:04 -0400
>
>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