From: Nick Shah (nshah@connect.com.au)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 18:22:04 GMT-3
John
A few observations :
What is the state of OSPF database ? Do the 2 loopbacks appear as external
LSA's in the database ? Since you are redistributing both protocols into
OSPF, I am assuming that they should be there (regardless of the state of
ISDN, up or down).
That would bring us to checking the 'forwarding address' which seems to
change when the ISDN state changes. I would actually check if/how the LSA is
changing with the change of state of the ISDN link. Because when BRI is
down, R2 is learning the loopback of R5 (and other routes on R5) via the
Frame relay, and when the ISDN is up, it learns via the ISDN.
So on R2 (I think R2 is the redistributing router) if both the loopbacks are
appearing, we can turn the debugs on and see why it isnt advertising.
(Sorry, I couldnt lab this one up, I have been very tied up with work
lately)
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell) <JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com>
To: 'Guoqi Cui' <guoqicui@yahoo.com>; Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)
<JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com>; 'Nick Shah' <nshah@connect.com.au>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:50 AM
Subject: RE: IGRP Disaster
> Actually, I did insert a distance into IGRP to make it higher than RIP,
and
> many of the issues were resolved (thanks so much for kicking that into my
> head, Nick!!!). However, there is one lingering problem which has me
> baffled:
>
> Here's a 'closeup' of the router doing the redistributing:
>
> IGRP to r5
> BRI0
> \
> \
> >SO
> / OSPF
> /
> S1
> RIP to r1 and BB
>
> In my route-maps I'm (10) permitting rip into ospf and (20) denying any,
and
> (10) permitting igrp and (20) denying any. What's happening now is that
when
> the ISDN is up, a route for the loopback on r1 does not get to r5, and a
> route for the loopback on r5 does not get to r1. All of the other RIP and
> IGRP nets DO SHOW UP ON ALL OTHER ROUTERS in the network including r1 and
> r5.....only these 2 loopbacks do not transfer.
>
> This kind of spooks me out the most about this...I put a secondary address
> on the bri of r5 in the same subnet as the loopback on r5, and that did
> indeed transfer to the other respective router! Thus I I have to think my
> ACL's and redist procedures are OK, and also that a possible loop is not
the
> problem. After all, is there a difference of redistrbuting a .5.x/24
subnet
> whether it be on a physical interface or a logical interface? .5.5/24
redist
> as 'acl 10 perm 148.3.5.0 0.0.0.255' did not go, but without changing the
> acl and adding 'ip add 148.3.5.1 255.255.255.0 backup' to the bri int, a
> route to 5.0 showed up on r1. BTW, I also "invented" a new loopback on r5
> and tried to send that through but it met the same fate as the original
> loopb's...it made it out to ospf, but not to the opposing RIP area.
>
> During all of this, every route is making it out to OSPF under both ISDN
> up/down situations. Is there something I'm missing concerning the
> advertisement of loopbacks over ISDN w/ IGRP? Am I nuts? I'm starting to
> think it's the latter.
>
> Any help would be very appreciated!
>
> Pags
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guoqi Cui [SMTP:guoqicui@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:25 PM
> > To: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell); 'Nick Shah';
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: IGRP Disaster
> >
> >
> > when you redistribute igrp into ospf and
> > and you filter the rip interface, you will not see
> > the rip interface in ospf. this only affect the
> > directed interfaces.
> >
> > To make it clearer, try redistribute connected, and
> > filter all the connected routes, then even you
> > redistribute igrp into ospf, the igrp interface will
> > not show.
> >
> > It seems the distance takes effect.
> >
> > Guoqi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)"
> > <JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com> wrote:
> > > Mr. Shah, I couldn't agree more. In fact, when I
> > > first did this situation,
> > > that is EXACTLY what I did. However, following my
> > > config presentation, my
> > > Sensei said "I did not say you could redist. btwn.
> > > RIP and IGRP, so please
> > > attempt without it" (I don't think he's being
> > > 'realistic', but rather trying
> > > to prove a point).
> > >
> > > Thanks for the corroboration of my original thought
> > > process!
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nick Shah [SMTP:nshah@connect.com.au]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:32 PM
> > > > To: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell);
> > > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: IGRP Disaster
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > > -ISDN is indeed being used as a backup..a backup
> > > intf. situation on r5.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, thats ok.
> > > >
> > > > > -I am not redistributing from RIP to IGRP...the
> > > redist is btwn. RIP and
> > > > > OSPF, and btwn. OSPF and IGRP.
> > > > > -Basically, since RIP and IGRP have the lower #
> > > of routes (and I'm not a
> > > > > strong typist), I have redists that look kinda
> > > like this:
> > > >
> > > > This looks ok, albeit prima facie, I think if
> > > IGRP is used on the backup
> > > > link, then in case of the failure of frame relay,
> > > you should still be able
> > > > to see RIP routes on R2, so you will need to
> > > redistribute between IGRP &
> > > > RIP
> > > > (dont you think ?)
> > > >
> > > > rgds
> > > > Nick
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > http://news.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:56 GMT-3