From: Jake (jakeczyz@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 19:44:56 GMT-3
Przemek,
Theres a known problem (feature?) of OSPF that when you redistribute into it
from
certain protocols (ISIS for sure, and probably RIP, and it looks like EIGRP too
...) it
does not pick up the locally attached networks which are running those protocol
s. You
have to "redistribute connected" with a route map (my route map usually matches
the
interface, but yours will work fine too). So, this is why you do not see the 19
2.168...
eigrp route. I bet you do get other routes from the eigrp cloud. I'm sure someo
ne else
will respond with more information on this for ya. Have phun.
HTH,
Jake
9102
--- Przemyslaw Karwasiecki <karwas@ifxcorp.com> wrote:
> Group,
>
> I am afraid, that this is nothing new on the list,
> but let me try to ask Yet Another Simple Redistribution Question again:
>
> Given, that we configure redistribution on one router OSPF process
> from _MULTIPLE_ different sources, like e.g. EIGRP and Connected,
> what would be a precedence of such redistribution.
>
> Please see:
>
> Loopback 0
> |
> (Cloud)---OSPF---(e0 - (Router r2) - s1)---EIGRP---(Cloud)
>
> And following config (all irrelevant stuff removed):
>
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 200.200.200.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 137.20.20.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Serial1
> ip address 192.168.21.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> router eigrp 1
> network 192.168.21.0
> !
> router ospf 1
> redistribute connected metric 200 subnets route-map LOOPBACK
> redistribute eigrp 1 metric-type 1 subnets
> network 137.20.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> !
> access-list 1 permit 200.200.200.0 0.0.0.255
> route-map LOOPBACK permit 10
> match ip address 1
>
>
> With following configuration, it looks like redistribution
> into OSPF from connected seems to take precedence over redistribution
> into OSPF from EIGRP, and route to 192.168.21.0/24 is gone.
>
> Obviously it is not allowed by route-map LOOPBACK,
> but this is not too clear for me, why it is not redistributed
> via statement "redistribute EIGRP".
>
> I was originally thinking that multiple redistributions will act
> like an union, but now I see I was wrong.
>
> So -- What are the rules in such situations?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Przemek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:47 GMT-3