From: Jay Greenberg (groupstudylist@execulink.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 13:23:53 GMT-3
That's not always the case. Usually things are fine because most
routing protocol's external routes have a higher admin distance than
their internal routes, however with RIP this is not the case. This is
the cause of classic "RIP route feedback", and requires the careful use
of split-horizon.
i.e., when a single mutual redistribution point exists, the only thing
saving your butt is split horizon (so be careful with redistribution on
NBMA spokes), and external distances with EIGRP and OSPF.
Alteration of either security precaution can result in
1) Single mutual redistribution
-routing loops.
2) Double mutual redistribution
-routing loops
-suboptimal routing.
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 09:51, Larson, Chris wrote:
> I have never done or seen a need to do any filtering on a single point of
> redistribution. You should not get any routing loops on a single point of
> redist.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vijay S Jayaraman [SMTP:vjayaram@in.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:33 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Mutual redistribution
> >
> > Hi,
> > In case I am doing a mutual redistribution at a single point between any
> > two routing protocols , do I really ever need to filter the routes that
> > are
> > being redistributed for prevention of a loop.....????????
> >
> > I have never done this and have had no problems till now..... But wouldnt
> > want to discover something new during my lab.....
> >
> > But is there any case where filtering is required in for such a
> > redistribution?....what is the normal thing to do??
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vijay.
> > .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:50 GMT-3