From: Jake Jake (spage@nc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 23:00:08 GMT-3
I never mention sub optimal routing. It will indeed prevent routing loops
but like u stated, it may also prevent routing in some scenarios. Distance
would be a better choice in that diagram.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of Henry
Jiang
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:52 AM
To: Robert Massiache; spage@nc.rr.com; bgunawan@hotpop.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Multiple Redistribution Point
I still have doubt on the link Robert post and the configuration sample of
Jake.
Both suggest to use tag simply to avoid loop and non-optimal route.
However, this may lose some redundancy. For example, in the example 2 of
the paper on the link
(http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/redist.html#probs), though R6 will
have the correct route to 192.168.1.0, it can't reach this net anymore if
R1-R6 connection is broken. But R6->R5->R4->R3->R2->R1 is an obvious backup
route. This route will never be learned by R6 because of the filter on R5.
Jeff Doyle's book suggested a "two-statement distance command" to deal with
this situation.
Any comments?
Thanks,
/Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Massiache" <robert2140@hotmail.com>
To: <spage@nc.rr.com>; <bgunawan@hotpop.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: Multiple Redistribution Point
> thanks for your explanation it is really fantastic.
>
> One more point I would like to stress here is that the EIGRP protocol
itself
> is well equiped handling the situations like preventing routing loops. In
> what way?
>
> EIGRP allot 2 different AD values, one to internal(90) and another
external
> routes (170). The routing loops are managed this way.
>
> In the case of RIP, IGRP, OSPF the story is slightly diferent as they each
> have got a single AD value to both internal as well as external routes.
>
> Probably Cisco might have plans to comeout with an Enhanced-OSPF in future
> like their EIGRP. They might prefer O,IA,E1 and E2 are assigned different
AD
> values. Currently Cisco follows an RFC way of implementing the OSPF.
>
> thanks
> Robert M
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Jake Jake" <spage@nc.rr.com>
> >Reply-To: "Jake Jake" <spage@nc.rr.com>
> >To: "BG" <bgunawan@hotpop.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: RE: Multiple Redistribution Point
> >Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:55:51 -0500
> >
> >I tend to use route-maps that tag routes and denys them based on tag.
> >
> >For example...mutual redistribution between ospf and eigrp I would do the
> >following:
> >
> >
> >route-map e-o deny 10
> > match tag 22
> >route-map e-o permit 20
> > set tag 11
> >
> >route-map o-e deny 10
> > match tag 11
> >route-map o-e permit 20
> > set tag 22
> >
> >route ospf 1
> > redistribute eigrp 111 subnets route-map e-o
> >
> >router eigrp 111
> > redistribute ospf 1 metric x x x x x route-map o-e
> >
> >
> >This will tag eigrp routes with 11 and ospf routes with 22 and also will
> >deny any routes that were advertised out with that tag to be learned back
> >in...avoiding routing loops.
> >
> >Jake
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> >BG
> >Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:45 PM
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Multiple Redistribution Point
> >
> >
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Could you explain to me, how to define the access-list in multiple
> >redistribution point scenario for
> >avoiding the routing loops?
> >Is there any tips and tricks?
> >
> >BG.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:07 GMT-3