From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 14:18:52 GMT-3
I had a question earlier in this thread:
I have also used this 2 process method but still am curious as to why
both OSPF processes need to be REDISTRIBUTED into IGRP. I have found
that this is needed; but it seems like the second process would contain
a full set of the OSPF routes and I would think it would be the only
thing that would need to be RED into IGRP. DOes anyone know why both
need to go into IGRP?
The answer seemed to "the requirements of the lab asked for the first
process to be redistributed". Setting the requiremments of the lab
aside, why won't this work (it won't work for me):
OSPF1 => OSPF2 => IGRP
This works:
OSPF1 => OSPF2 => IGRP
OSPF1 => IGRP
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:08:55 -0700, "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
said:
> well i didnt get all your points ..however the two ospf processes is
> just working as perfect solution for the summary problem .
> the question is to redistribute the ospf running on the interfaces into
> IGRP , so you SHOULD fulfill this requirement , the other process is
> your own way to solve the summarization issue ..so you end up
> redistibuting both ..
>
>
> good luck
> --
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:37:52
> jin wrote:
> >Right,
> >ospf and igrp should be redistributed mutually.
> >but he told us 'redistributed' , only about 'redistributed'.
> >If we already made static route or default route, we can use the static and
default route origination.
> >but if we not make that already, we can't use anything.
> >Should Be only Redistributed.
> >
> >I think.
> >Only way for that problem is Understanding how to use of Summary address com
mand on the ospf.
> >The important thing is that summary address command can summarize the any ro
utes that isn't exist on the routing table Tagging OSPF.
> >If you can understand this, You can redistrubute the ospf into igrp and rip.
> >And I already make a success on that situation.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> >To: "kym blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>; <ccie1@lycos.com>; <fangloma@pacific
.net.hk>; <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>; "Anthony Pace" <anthonypace@fastma
il.fm>
> >Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 5:03 AM
> >Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> >
> >
> >> probably because the question is asking you to redistribute the ospf (ospf
1) into IGRP on that router .:))))
> >>
> >> good point ..HAH
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:28:40
> >> Anthony Pace wrote:
> >> >I have also used this 2 process method but still am curious as to why
> >> >both OSPF processes need to be REDISTRIBUTED into IGRP. I have found
> >> >that this is needed; but it seems like the second process would contain
> >> >a full set of the OSPF routes and I would think it would be the only
> >> >thing that would need to be RED into IGRP. DOes anyone know why both
> >> >need to go into IGRP?
> >> >
> >> >Anthony Pace
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:28:26 +0000, "kym blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>
> >> >said:
> >> >> C,
> >> >>
> >> >> Example OSPF1 area, you have:
> >> >>
> >> >> 192.168.1.0/24
> >> >> 192.168.2.0/24
> >> >> 192.168.3.0/26
> >> >>
> >> >> redistribute ospf1 into IGRP, but IGRP only receives .1 and .2
> >> >> networks.
> >> >> Solution:
> >> >>
> >> >> router ospf 2
> >> >> redistribute ospf 1 metric-type 1 subnets
> >> >> summary-address 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0
> >> >>
> >> >> router igrp 100
> >> >> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1000 100 255 1 1500
> >> >> redistribute ospf 2 metric 1000 100 255 1 1500
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course add appropriate filtering and passive-interfaces.
> >> >>
> >> >> HTH, Kym
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >From: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> >> >> >Reply-To: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> >> >> >To: fangloma@pacific.net.hk, Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz, "
kym
> >> >> >blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> >> >> >Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:44:23 -0700
> >> >> >
> >> >> > guys ;
> >> >> >im still having confusing about this method .
> >> >> >
> >> >> >if you create an OSPF2 process , and you want to summarize the OSPF1
into
> >> >> >it , again you are using the summary command into the wrong direction
!!!
> >> >> >,summary address is supposed to summarize external routes into OSPF1 a
nd
> >> >> >not OSPF1 internal non-classful routes into OSPF2 ...am i right or im
> >> >> >missing something here .
> >> >> >
> >> >> >this subject has been killed on this mailing list hundered of times
> >> >> >..however i didnt find any clue for it .
> >> >> >
> >> >> >can any folk post the right dierctions to solve this problem ..i would
> >> >> >appreciate if anyone correct my concepts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >candidate
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:44:32
> >> >> > kym blair wrote:
> >> >> > >Darryl,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >There are a couple methods. The one many people like is to create a
> >> >> >second
> >> >> > >OSPF process, redistribute the first ospf process into the second,
> >> >> >summarize
> >> >> > >each non-classful network under the second ospf process, then
> >> >> >redistribute
> >> >> > >both ospf processes into RIP/IGRP.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >HTH, Kym
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >>From: Fanglo MA <fangloma@pacific.net.hk>
> >> >> > >>Reply-To: Fanglo MA <fangloma@pacific.net.hk>
> >> >> > >>To: Darryl Munro <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>
> >> >> > >>CC: Group Study <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> >> > >>Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> >> >> > >>Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:59:03 +0800 (HKT)
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>Would you consider using route-map to direct summary address point
to
> >> >> > >>null0 to replace the static route functionality?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>Regards,
> >> >> > >>Fanglo
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Darryl Munro wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> > How is it possible to redistribute from OSPF to IGRP/RIP without
> >> >> >using
> >> >> > >> > statics to Null0? I know that the mask needs to be the same as t
he
> >> >> > >>IGRP/RIP
> >> >> > >> > domain, however is it achievable to do this with area range comm
ands
> >> >> >and
> >> >> > >> > summary-address's positioned at the right the places in your OSP
F
> >> >> > >>domain?
> >> >> > >> > Area range should take care of all of the OSPF inter area routes
and
> >> >> > >>summary
> >> >> > >> > address the external addresses from other routing protocols. I j
ust
> >> >> > >>can't
> >> >> > >> > seem to work this one out in my lab. Any suggestions would be
> >> >> > >>appreciated.
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > TIA
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Darryl Munro
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > CNE, MCSE, CCNP, CCDP, CCEA
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Systems Consultant
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Computerland NZ
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > 104-106 Customs St West
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > PO Box 3631, Auckland
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Phone: 09 306 8700
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Cell Phone 027 2897786
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Darryl <mailto:darryl.munro@computerland.co.nz> Munro
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain
> >> >> > >>information
> >> >> > >> > that is confidential and subject to privilege. If you are not t
he
> >> >> > >>intended
> >> >> > >> > recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distrib
ution
> >> >> >or
> >> >> > >> > copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have rece
ived
> >> >> > >>this
> >> >> > >> > e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and delete all mat
erial
> >> >> > >> > pertaining to this e-mail. Ceritas / Computerland will not accep
t
> >> >> > >>liability
> >> >> > >> > for any loss or damage caused by using any material or attachmen
ts
> >> >> > >>contained
> >> >> > >> > in this message. While every best practice has been taken to, no
> >> >> > >>warranty is
> >> >> > >> > made that this material is free from computer virus or other def
ect.
> >> >> > >> > Ceritas/Computerland's entire liability will be limited to
> >> >> >resupplying
> >> >> > >>the
> >> >> > >> > material. Thank you
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:42 GMT-3