From: ccie candidate (ccie1@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 16:41:52 GMT-3
on previous post by one CCIE guy
he said this technique is not allowed on the lab ??
however techniques like tunnel and secodary ip addresses is acceptable .
can anyone confirm this ? and why ??
--On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:48:57 Anthony Pace wrote: >Donny, > >THis sounds correct. It sounds like the same principle which causes you >to have to do "full mesh", 3 way redistribution on a router with 3 >routing protocols to be redistributed. I have noticed that in this >scenario the same thing happens. > >Anthony PAce > > >On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:43:04 +0800, "Donny MATEO" ><donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com> said: >> >> I'm not sure but perhaps >> >> ospf 1 is distributed to ospf 2. >> then ospf 2 is distribute to igrp. >> All this is done under one router. >> >> The question is why the route of ospf 1 does not appear in the routing >> table of igrp. >> I'm not sure but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the >> route that is distributed to >> other routing protocol has to appear in the routing table ( this is >> where I might be wrong... ) >> If this happens in a single router, the routing table would be that of >> the ospf 1 process (as in >> ospf 2 it would be external). So when you redistribute to ospf 2 to >> igrp, only the "summarized" >> route appears cause that one is in the routing table and known from >> ospf 2. While the rest of the >> route osfp 2 knows are external and are know in ospf 1 as internal, >> which is prefered and listed in >> the routing table. >> I will have to test this to verify, but I'm sure someone in the list >> would have the answer by now. >> Search the archive, I believe this had been discussed before. >> >> Donny >> >> >>
>> "Anthony Pace" >> <anthonypace@fast To: "ccie >> candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>, >> ccielab@groupstudy.com, "jin" >> mail.fm> >> <jin10101010@hotmail.com> >> Sent by: cc: >> nobody@groupstudy Subject: Re: >> Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP >> .com >>
>>
>> 25-07-2002 01:18 >> Please respond to >> "Anthony Pace" >>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> 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 a nd 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 command on the ospf. >> > >The important thing is that summary address command can summarize the any routes that isn't exist >> on the routing table Tagging OSPF. >> > >If you can understand this, You can redistrubute the ospf into igrp and r ip. >> > >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@paci fic.net.hk>; >> <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>; "Anthony Pace" >> <anthonypace@fastmail.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 (o spf1) 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 contai n >> > >> >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 OS PF1 into >> > >> >> >it , again you are using the summary command into the wrong directi on !!! >> > >> >> >,summary address is supposed to summarize external routes into OSPF 1 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 wo uld >> > >> >> >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 creat e 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 poi nt 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 with out >> > >> >> >using >> > >> >> > >> > statics to Null0? I know that the mask needs to be the same a s the >> > >> >> > >>IGRP/RIP >> > >> >> > >> > domain, however is it achievable to do this with area range c ommands >> > >> >> >and >> > >> >> > >> > summary-address's positioned at the right the places in your OSPF >> > >> >> > >>domain? >> > >> >> > >> > Area range should take care of all of the OSPF inter area rou tes 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 contai n >> > >> >> > >>information >> > >> >> > >> > that is confidential and subject to privilege. If you are no t the >> > >> >> > >>intended >> > >> >> > >> > recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, dist ribution >> > >> >> >or >> > >> >> > >> > copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have r eceived >> > >> >> > >>this >> > >> >> > >> > e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and delete all material >> > >> >> > >> > pertaining to this e-mail. Ceritas / Computerland will not ac cept >> > >> >> > >>liability >> > >> >> > >> > for any loss or damage caused by using any material or attach ments >> > >> >> > >>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 defect. >> > >> >> > >> > 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 - 19:36:43 GMT-3