From: ccie candidate (ccie1@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 20:43:26 GMT-3
i didnt try to test what will happen if i didnt redistribute ospf 1 into IGRP ,
but i dont find a reason why it won't work .
--On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:18:52 Anthony Pace wrote: >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 co mmand on the ospf. >> >The important thing is that summary address command can summarize the any r outes 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@pacifi c.net.hk>; <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>; "Anthony Pace" <anthonypace@fastm ail.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 (osp f1) 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 OSPF 1 into >> >> >> >it , again you are using the summary command into the wrong direction !!! >> >> >> >,summary address is supposed to summarize external routes into OSPF1 and >> >> >> >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 woul d >> >> >> >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 withou t >> >> >> >using >> >> >> > >> > statics to Null0? I know that the mask needs to be the same as the >> >> >> > >>IGRP/RIP >> >> >> > >> > domain, however is it achievable to do this with area range com mands >> >> >> >and >> >> >> > >> > summary-address's positioned at the right the places in your OS PF >> >> >> > >>domain? >> >> >> > >> > Area range should take care of all of the OSPF inter area route s and >> >> >> > >>summary >> >> >> > >> > address the external addresses from other routing protocols. I just >> >> >> > >>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 the >> >> >> > >>intended >> >> >> > >> > recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distri bution >> >> >> >or >> >> >> > >> > copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have rec eived >> >> >> > >>this >> >> >> > >> > e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and delete all ma terial >> >> >> > >> > pertaining to this e-mail. Ceritas / Computerland will not acce pt >> >> >> > >>liability >> >> >> > >> > for any loss or damage caused by using any material or attachme nts >> >> >> > >>contained >> >> >> > >> > in this message. While every best practice has been taken to, n o >> >> >> > >>warranty is >> >> >> > >> > made that this material is free from computer virus or other de fect. >> >> >> > >> > 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