From: kym blair (kymblair@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 03:07:33 GMT-3
This is exactly right. Successful candidates have said they used the
dual-process method, so if you have an OSPF-IGRP scenario, ask the proctor
if you can use that method. If not, go to another (method that is, not
proctor).
Kym
>From: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
>Reply-To: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
>To: "'ccie candidate'" <ccie1@lycos.com>, "Cade Wagner"
><cwagner@logosinc.com>
>CC: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: Redistributing from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:41:53 -0700
>
>there are 3 other methods to solve this problem , however all of them
>should introduce something new ( like IP addressing )which are not
>particularly on the lab
>
>
>1- create loopbacks inside your ospf domain on the redistribution router ,
>those loopbacks are all of the same mask as the IGRP , put those loopbacks
>in the same subnet as your OSPF subnets which of different mask .
>
>for example assume you have 172.3.10.0/28 somewhere on your ospf domain
>..create loopback with 172.3.10.0/24 on the redistribution router , this
>network will propagate to the IGRP domain , the redistribution router will
>have two subnets now , the more specific network will work .
>
>2-create secondary addresses on the IGRP domain redistribution router (
>this to allow the IGRP routers to accept differnt subnet masks) to the
>downstream routers .
>
>3-create tunnels instead of secondary addresses to do the same like 2
>
>
>
>the easist way to do this is also to create another ospf process on the
>redistributionn router , summarize ospf1 to ospf2 and redistribute both
>into IGRP
>
>however one of the guys on the list claim that the last method should be
>unacceptable .
>
>
>if anyone has different opinion ,can post please
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 22:38:55
> Cade Wagner wrote:
> > I am curious how these other two methods work. (tunnel and secondary
> >addressing) Could someone explain these? I have some ideas, but they are
> >untested:
> >
> >Tunnel:
> >
> >1. Use addressing in the same subnet with the same mask as what needs to
>be
> >distributed.
> >2. Use addressing in an entirely different subnet so that you get the
> >summarization effect.
> >
> >Secondary:
> >
> >1. Not sure here.
> >
> >Any help is greatly appreciated.
> >
> >Cade
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ccie candidate [mailto:ccie1@lycos.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:42 PM
> >To: Donny MATEO; Anthony Pace
> >Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> >
> > 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 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 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 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@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
> >(ospf1) 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 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
> >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 the
> >>> > >> >> > >>IGRP/RIP
> >>> > >> >> > >> > domain, however is it achievable to do this with area
> >range commands
> >>> > >> >> >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
> >routes 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,
> >distribution
> >>> > >> >> >or
> >>> > >> >> > >> > copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you
> >have received
> >>> > >> >> > >>this
> >>> > >> >> > >> > e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and
>delete
> >all material
> >>> > >> >> > >> > pertaining to this e-mail. Ceritas / Computerland will
>not
> >accept
> >>> > >> >> > >>liability
> >>> > >> >> > >> > for any loss or damage caused by using any material or
> >attachments
> >>> > >> >> > >>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 - 19:36:46 GMT-3