From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 09:38:26 GMT-3
Seems to me the 2-process method can work, but doesn 't the redistribution betw
een the processes create a route to null 0 ? Might such "static" routes not b
e allowed? If they were allowed, why wouldn't you just create a summary?
Thanks,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
To: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>; "Harish DV/peakxv" <harish.dv@peakxv.ne
t>
Cc: <ccie1@lycos.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <cwagner@logosinc.com>; "kym b
lair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>; <nobody@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 7:33 AM
Subject: RE: Redistributing from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> make sense :)
>
> --
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:11:05
> Harish DV/peakxv wrote:
> >
> >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, cw
agner@logosinc.com, "kym blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>
> > Sent by: cc: ccielab@groupstudy.
com
> > nobody@groupstudy Subject: RE: Redistributing
from 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