From: Zhi Hao Hong (zhhong@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 23:43:50 GMT-3
I believe you will fail with a little more complex topo. I did. So maybe there
is no a good standard "multiple redistribution" way with reachability and redun
dancy. Is there any detailed description or samples ?
I am not sure if the following will happen?
:: When the ospf process got redistributed type 5/7 LSA. Will this prevent the
normal same Type 1/2/3/4 LSAs into the ospf database? Then the all routers wil
l not have a same LSA database.
It's really headache, but happened with some topo changes. The ospf database w
ill be in mess, so lets delay to talk about the distance.
Thanks.
At 09:35 2002-5-9 +0800, Chua, Parry wrote:
>Since Eigrp external route ad is 170, we don't have to do any thing, try it ou
t and break the link to verify.
>
>Of course, what ever we do here is based on a given topology. Some solution co
uld include other factors. But I think it is a bad ideal to set two different r
outing protocol to a same AD value, how the router going to decide which path s
hould it take to a given destanation where they are appear in both routing prot
ocols ?
>
>> Parry Chua
>>
>>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zhi Hao Hong [mailto:zhhong@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:26 PM
>To: Chua, Parry; Yan-Hui Liang; ying chang;
>loomis_towcar@speedracer.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>prospectccie@yahoo.com
>Subject: RE: Redist: Filtering vs Fail-over
>
>
>
>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
problem 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 b
lock 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 redistribu
tion?
>>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 metr
ic carefully to get
>>>proper route and redundency. For example, in OSPF process, if you only accep
t RIP network, and in RIP process only accept OSPF network. When there is a lin
k 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 - 10:58:53 GMT-3