RE: Just for a confirmation !! on redistribution

From: Emmanuel Oppong (e-oppong@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 13:34:26 GMT-3


   
Should work fine, I think. But I would also "tag" any protocols (including
connected routes) redistributed into OSPF. This way if any route is
sneeking back into ospf you can tell using "show ip ospf database" and then
filter it out.

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Ahmed Mamoor Amimi
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:27 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Just for a confirmation !! on redistribution

Morning Guys !!
Is my way of redistribution correct please confirmed after reading this :

r1------(eigrp)-------r2------(ospf)-------r3

r1 running eigrp
r2 running eigrp and ospf
r3 running ospf

r1 have routes 1,2,3
r3 have routes 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 (lots of routes)

on r2 i will redistribute and be specific that no route loop is formed so i
use route-map in redistribution.

i made a route-map on r2 which only calls eigrp routes
route-map eigrp
    match ip address 1

access-list 1 permit 1
access-list 1 permit 2
access-list 1 permit 3

for ospf i dont make access-list but instead i denied 1,2,3 and allow others
,
like :
route-map ospf deny 10
    match ip address 1

route-map ospf permit 20

ospf route-map is calling that same access-list that is made for eigrp but
here this access-list is denied and rest are permitted.

Is this the correct way or i should make an access-list for ospf and call
4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 (takes lot of time) and apply it to the ospf
route-map.

Just want to make sure .....

waiting for comments.

-Mamoor



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:55 GMT-3