From: Zhi Hao Hong (zhhong@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 10:26:05 GMT-3
How do you think if we change the rip to eigrp for multiple redistribution?
Eigrp external is AD 170. So maybe you think we don't need to do nothing?
Thanks.
At 09:54 2002-5-7 +0800, Chua, Parry wrote:
>This is another way :
>Redistrbute routing protocol from lower AD to higher AD should not present a p
roblem 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 bl
ock 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 redistribut
ion?
>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 metri
c 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
get 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