From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@xxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 23:41:41 GMT-3
Do you remember the route-map that matched routes by interface?
I remember someone posted an example last year.
It was a redistribute connected command;
But the twist was route map matched the interface (i.e. lo0) and not the
network of the interface.
I'll have to put that on my list of things to try.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Tom Larus
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:08 PM
To: Treptow, Georg; Anthony Pace; Dennis Laganiere; 'Paul Connelly';
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OSPF tags as a way to stop route feedback from
redistribution-- what is the downside?
Yes. RIP does not carry tags. This tagging must be done as the routes
are
redistributed INTO a routing protocol that supports them. I see the
problem, now, and that is that we still need to stop the OSPF routes
that go
into RIP or IGRP from feeding back into OSPF. For that I guess we need
to
use the old methods of blocking individual routes.
Doyle I also indicated that distribute lists have their shortcomings,
too,
but it is too late for me to get teh book and cite the page. He had an
explanation that I need to take a bit more time to think about and
digest. I
definitely need to do more work with this manipulating admin distance.
The
big problems seem to have to do with redistributed routes that have
lower
admin distance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Treptow, Georg" <gxtrept@qwest.com>
To: "'Tom Larus'" <tlarus@novacoxmail.com>; "Anthony Pace"
<anthonypace@fastmail.fm>; "Dennis Laganiere"
<dennisl@advancedbionics.com>;
"'Paul Connelly'" <chewy7700@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF tags as a way to stop route feedback from
redistribution--
what is the downside?
> This unfortunatly is not an answer but more of an extension to Tom's
> question.....
>
> I have recently done a lot of work on tagging, one of my scenarios
that I
> tried did not work out that great..
>
> R1--------------R6----
> RIP v.1 |
> | OSPF
> R10--|
> |
> R4--------------R13---
>
> R1,R4 are redistribution routers between RIP v.1 and OSPF, R10 runs
RIPv.1
> only. R6 and R10 OSPF only.
>
> I thought to myself that there has to be a better way of
redistribution
from
> RIP to OSPF and vice versa.
> Instead of doing distribute/prefix lists I tagged all routes going
into
the
> RIP domain (from OSPF) at R1 with 1111 and R4 I used 4444.
> At R1 I declared all routes with a tag of 4444 to be dismissed from
> redistribution back into OPSF and at R4 i did the same blocking all
routes
> with a tag of 1111 but allowing all others. For whatever reason all
routes
> from the RIP domain were blocked.
>
> Is it possible that RIP gets rid of tag information? Am I missing
something
> here?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Georg Treptow
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Larus [mailto:tlarus@novacoxmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:21 PM
> To: Anthony Pace; Dennis Laganiere; 'Paul Connelly';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OSPF tags as a way to stop route feedback from
redistribution--
> what is the downside?
>
>
> I'd like to ask about the downside of another approach that seems too
good
> to be true. In doing practice labs, I like to tag routes from other
> protocols as they are redistributed into OSPF (for example, tag routes
from
> IGRP 120 with tag 120), then have a route-map that stops those routes
from
> going back into the other protocol. The problem is that one does not
see
> this in case studies or in practice lab solutions very often, and that
makes
> me nervous. Doyle I contains a reference to this use of tags in the
chapter
> on route-maps, and that makes me feel a little better.
>
> This has the feel of something that seems neat but is very dangerous.
> Basically, anything that does involve manually typing in half the
routes
in
> my network feels wrong, because it is not the tedious method that
involves
> as much typing of routes as possible and nailing things down manually.
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Pace" <anthonypace@fastmail.fm>
> To: "Tom Larus" <tlarus@novacoxmail.com>; "Dennis Laganiere"
> <dennisl@advancedbionics.com>; "'Paul Connelly'"
<chewy7700@yahoo.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:01 PM
> Subject: OSPF into IGRP and summarizing into FLSM
>
>
> > Tom Larus said "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."
> >
> > In other words you are using IP SUMMARY under OSPF even though you
want
> > to shoot the /24 into IGRP? Then, a /24 is created right there on
that
> > router and puhed into the IGRP world? Is that correct?
> >
> > I have been looking at this list for a definitive answer on this for
a
> > while (not wanting to repost a question if it has allready been
> > answered) This seems like a solution. The quesion has been asked
many
> > times and interpreted or missinterpreted differently in different
posts
> > but essentially this is the problem as I see it: All of the
protocoles
> > on the LABS we have all been doing have a mechanism for
redistributing
> > and controlling summarization except IGRP. The LABS almost always
give
> > you the ability to summarize almost all your networks via these
other
> > mechanisms long before they reach the OSPF/IGRP redistribution point
> > with the exeption of a loopback or directly connected network on
that
> > router which does not conform to the IGRP FLSM. It has been
suggested
> > that a "ip default-network" be shot into IGRP and this works but it
is
> > questionable as to weather this constitutes an ILLEGAL STATIC ROUTE.
> > The Solie labs pose this scenario but the soltions do not address
it.
> >
> > Are there any other tools that can be used?
> >
> > Anthony Pace
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:35:53 -0400, "Tom Larus"
<tlarus@novacoxmail.com>
> > said:
> > > 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 - 08:12:29 GMT-3