From: ccie candidate (ccie1@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 12:38:43 GMT-3
c;
the null0 summary is produced automatically by the routing protocol ..when you
use the area range for example it also create this summary (however i have seen
some of the IOS old version which doent ) so i think the static route which is
not allowed is when you use the exiplcit command IP ROUTE x.x.x.x .
well your second part of the question the whole point , summary address of the
OSPF is used to summarize something INTO the ospf domain .not the opposite whi
ch is to summarize the OSPF to others like IGRP ..so the folks invent the way o
f having another ospf process where you can summarize inside it the whole ospf1
domain (now if u look from ospf2 side ..ospf1 is external to it where you can
use teh summary address in the right direction ) get your VLSM subnets to the I
GRP right mask and shoot all to the IGRP .
hope this helps .
--On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:38:26 Bob Sinclair wrote: >Seems to me the 2-process method can work, but doesn 't the redistribution bet ween the processes create a route to null 0 ? Might such "static" routes not be 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.n et> >Cc: <ccie1@lycos.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <cwagner@logosinc.com>; "kym blair" <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, c wagner@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