From: ying c (bf5tgh1@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 18:04:54 GMT-3
I did not pay much of attention of Q.6 until you
mentioned it, I think you are right about that we need
to adjust distance under EIGRP instead of ISIS. I
don't remember I had any problems with this one when I
had the config, but I kind of fooling around with
different proctol combinations, maybe I did not use
EIGRP/ISIS when I did it...
--- Omer Ansari <omer@ansari.com> wrote:
> Chang,
>
> I agree with you. In fact, A and B are not running
> ISIS in the first
> place.
>
> Do also comment on Q.6. the answer should be under
> the eigrp
> configuration, not under the ISIS configuration
> right?
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, ying c wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can someone explain why the solution provided for
> page
> > 799 question 5 EIGRP/ISIS redistribution in page
> 961
> > is needed?
> >
> > In page 961, Doyle explains that we don't need to
> do
> > anything when redistribute from ISIS into EIGRP,
> > because EIGRP external routes have higher AD 170.
> I
> > have no problems with this part. However, when we
> > redistribute from EIGRP into ISIS, he raises route
> > coming from EIGRP domain to 170, is this
> necessary? I
> > cannot see why we need it, because we redistribute
> > from a lower AD domain (EIGRP AD = 90) into a
> higher
> > AD domain (ISIS AD = 115). It seems to me that
> with or
> > without the distance manipulation added in page
> 961 we
> > should not see any differences in the routing
> table.
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chang
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> > http://finance.yahoo.com
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:46 GMT-3