From: Chris Hugo (chrishugo@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 03:42:57 GMT-3
Thank you very much Curtis. Make cent$ now. :)
thanks again,
chris hugo
Curtis Phillips <cphillips@suscom.net> wrote: Chris,
The reason that Doyle refers to split horizon is related to the fact that
the routes can exit teh router and get fed back. So, the split horizon
refers to the neighboring router not advertising the route back.
As far as redistribution occuring more than once on a router.. ( I assume
thats what you mean) If you think about it you realize that the router
itself has established which protocol owns the route on the local router.
Any redistribution has to occur from that protocol only to the target
protocol.(s) .
HTH
Curtis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hugo"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:53 PM
Subject: Three-Way redistribution possible? Doyle I- Chapter 11
> Hi all,
>
> Going through Doyle I and there is a question #5 on page 327 that states
on figure 3.27 that asks why isn't the 192.168.1.0/24 route entry not
entered in Campanella's routing table.
>
> Doyle's answer on page 972 Answer #5 states that the problem is due to a
split horizon rule that is enforced from the Eigrp protocol.
>
> I would think that this is instead a problem with a protocol not being
able to use another protocol as a transit protocol. But I could be wrong?
>
> The redistribution scenario is ospf-to-Eigrp AS1 and mutual redistribution
between Eigrp AS#1 and Eigrp AS#2. Their is no redistribution between Eigrp
AS#1 and the OSPF process.
>
> PS.The core router is the main redistribution point: Eigrp AS#1, Eigrp AS
#2 and an OSPF process. No redistribution is done elsewhere in the scenario.
>
> Could somebody PLEASE validate Doyle's answer.
>
> Thank You,
>
> chris hugo
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:54 GMT-3