From: Tom Larus (tlarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 14:35:53 GMT-3
I have never taken the lab, so I could not speak to that aspect of the
question, but I did learn something recently I thought was neat, but that
many others here have probably known for years.
Let's say you have loopback addresses on OSPF enabled routers that you will
need to summarize so that an IGRP /24 network will be able to see them and
reach them. You redistribute them into OSPF, and use summary-address ip
mask to summarize them right there on the same router, which is by
definition an ASBR because redistribution is happening on it. Works like a
charm.
Okay, it's old hat for a lot of you old hands, but I still think it is
pretty neat.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Laganiere" <dennisl@advancedbionics.com>
To: "'Paul Connelly'" <chewy7700@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: Connected routes vs network statement
> Some routing protocols will interpret the two differently. EIGRP, or
> instance, will see the redistributed route as external, which has a much
> higher AD.
>
> --- Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Connelly [mailto:chewy7700@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:03 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Connected routes vs network statement
>
> Is there a preference in the lab when to use "redistribute connected" vs.
> network statements? I know the redistribute connected will not turn on the
> routing protocol on the interface but you can easily turn it off with
> passive-interface. Just want to check if the exam wants you to do it a
> certain way.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:23 GMT-3