From: Harish DV/peakxv (harish.dv@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 05:11:05 GMT-3
I would say the dual-process is more acceptable than the sec interface or
tunnel interface.
"ccie candidate"
<ccie1@lycos.com> To: ccie1@lycos.com, cwagn
er@logosinc.com, "kym blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>
Sent by: cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
nobody@groupstudy Subject: RE: Redistributing fro
m OSPF to RIP/IGRP
.com
07/27/2002 12:09
AM
Please respond to
"ccie candidate"
kym ;
let me get this clear .
dual-process can be or cannot be acceptable .
--On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:07:33 kym blair wrote: >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