From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 22:54:17 GMT-3
This is another way :
Redistrbute routing protocol from lower AD to higher AD should not present a pr
oblem but not the other way.
<< R6 >>
=========================================
Router ospf 1
redistribute rip metric 100 metric-type 1 subnet
network 5.0 area 0
distance 121 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 1
!
Router rip
version 2
Redistribute ospf 1 metric 2
network 6.0
no auto-summary
!
access-list 1 permit 1.0
access-list 1 permit 2.0
access-list 1 permit 6.0
==========================================
<< R5 >>
=========================================
Router ospf 1
redistribute rip metric 100 metric-type 1 subnet
network 3.0 area 0
distance 121 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 1
!
Router rip
version 2
Redistribute ospf 1 metric 2
network 2.0
no auto-summary
!
access-list 1 permit 1.0
access-list 1 permit 2.0
access-list 1 permit 6.0
===============================================
> Parry Chua
>
>
-----Original Message-----
From: Yan-Hui Liang [mailto:Yan-Hui.Liang@sprint-canada.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:36 PM
To: Zhi Hao Hong; Chua, Parry; ying chang; loomis_towcar@speedracer.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com; prospectccie@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
Using rip version 2 here. If use rip version 1, you might need summary some blo
ck or static
route to allow classless route inject into rip.
<< R6 >>
=========================================
Router ospf 1
redistribute rip metric 100 metric-type 1 subnet
network 5.0 area 0
distance 130
distance 110 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 1
Router rip
version 2
Redistribute ospf 1 metric 2
network 6.0
distance 130
distance 120 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 2
no auto-summary
access-list 1 permit 3.0
access-list 1 permit 4.0
access-list 2 permit 1.0
access-list 2 permit 2.0
=================================================
<< R5 >>
=========================================
Router ospf 1
redistribute rip metric 100 metric-type 1 subnet
network 3.0 area 0
distance 130
distance 110 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 1
Router rip
version 2
Redistribute ospf 1 metric 2
network 2.0
distance 130
distance 120 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 2
no auto-summary
access-list 1 permit 4.0
access-list 1 permit 5.0
access-list 2 permit 1.0
access-list 2 permit 6.0
=================================================
If you want R1 to prefer R6 for primary path.
config r1 to:
router rip
distance 100 6.0
-----Original Message-----
From: Zhi Hao Hong [mailto:zhhong@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Chua, Parry; ying chang; loomis_towcar@speedracer.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com; prospectccie@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
HI,
Can you give some detailed examples about the two way for multiple redistributi
on?
Or any links avaliable?
Thanks
Zhihao Hong
At 09:33 2002-5-6 +0800, Chua, Parry wrote:
>If a topology given in this way, you should consider usins distance and metric
carefully to get
>proper route and redundency. For example, in OSPF process, if you only accept
RIP network, and in RIP process only accept OSPF network. When there is a link
down in one of the router( ospf or rip),
>you lost reachability.
>
>If you allow all redistribution, with careful metric and distance setup, you g
et expected route and failover when link failure.
>
>
>> Parry Chua
>>
>>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ying chang [mailto:ying_c@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 11:41 PM
>To: loomis_towcar@speedracer.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>prospectccie@yahoo.com
>Subject: RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
>
>
>Hi Mas & Jag,
>
>No, I don't think you'll lose redundancy with regular redistribution.
>Doyle's case is more or less artificial so he can lead us to use distance.
>If I think the way you are going to apply the filters without the distance,
>the only problem would be suboptimal routing. In stead of say we use #1 or
>#2, I think what we should do is to combine both #1 and #2, i.e. raise the
>distance so the redistribute routes are not preferred over the local learned
>routes.
>
>The case in the book is for achiving optimal routing with redundancy. If
>suboptimal is not an issue here, either way would be fine. But if we are
>required to have the optimal routing and the redundacy, we'll have to
>control the backup routes by distance to save the routes at the background
>instead just get rid off them by the filters. His topology is like below.
>Without any filters, r5 would take ospf E2 route r5-r2-r3-r6 route to reach
>net 6.0, so at r6 filters are added to solve this problem but losing the
>redundancy r5-r6 link is cut.
>
> R2---4.0----R3
> | |
> | |
> 3.0 OSPF 5.0
> | |
> ===== R5 ======== R6 ====== <<< Redist points
> | /
> 2.0 RIP 6.0
> | /
> | /
> 1.0---R1------
>
>Chang
>
>>From: "Mas Kato" <loomis_towcar@speedracer.com>
>>Reply-To: "Mas Kato" <loomis_towcar@speedracer.com>
>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com, prospectccie@yahoo.com, ying_c@hotmail.com,
>> loomis_towcar@speedracer.com
>>Subject: RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
>>Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 01:19:38 -0700
>>
>>[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 different 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 - 10:58:52 GMT-3