From: Hunt Lee (ciscoforme3@yahoo.com.au)
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 08:38:04 GMT-3
Hi Brian / Jim,
Thanks so much for the quick reply. After I did a "distance eigrp 95 95", I then
have the recursive routing problem. I was intented to block off the 150.1.2.0/24
route from learning via R4's Tunnel interface, but R4 keeps on saying it is learning
the route from the tunnel int even after I put in the distribute-list under EIGRP
process...
interface Tunnel0
ip address 150.1.24.4 255.255.255.0
tunnel source Loopback0
tunnel destination 150.1.2.2
router eigrp 100
redistribute rip route-map inEIGRP
passive-interface FastEthernet0/0
passive-interface Serial0/0
network 150.1.14.4 0.0.0.0
network 150.1.24.0 0.0.0.255
default-metric 1000 1 255 1 1000
distribute-list BlockTunnel in Tunnel0
distance eigrp 95 95
no auto-summary
route-map BlockTunnel permit 10
match ip address prefix-list PrefixA
ip prefix-list PrefixA deny 150.1.2.2/32
ip prefix-list PrefixA deny 150.1.2.0/24
ip prefix-list PrefixA permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
Thanks so much for the help in advance,
Cheers,
Lee
--- Brian McGahan <brian@cyscoexpert.com> wrote: > Hunt,
>
> You cannot change the distance of External EIGRP on a per prefix
> basis. Therefore, either you must change the distance of the OSPF
> prefix as you have done, or change the distance of all External EIGRP
> prefixes as Jim has proposed.
>
> For your DLSw+ question, yes you need a LLC2 mapping. Since
> DLSw+ lite uses local acknowledgment, you must provide reliable
> transport over the WAN. Frame-Relay by itself is not reliable,
> therefore the extra LLC2 header must be added to ensure reliable
> transport.
>
> HTH
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> Director of Design and Implementation
> brian@cyscoexpert.com
>
> CyscoExpert Corporation
> Internetwork Consulting & Training
> Toll Free: 866.CyscoXP
> Fax: 847.674.2625
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Hunt Lee
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:19 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: CyscoExpert lab
> >
> > Hi friends,
> >
> > I have some questions about the configuration for Cyscoexpert Sample
> lab.
> >
> > First: for question 2 under J
> >
> > 2. Double check R1, are you missing any routes?
> >
> > I got this to work by increasing the Admin Dist. of OSPF route at R4
> from
> > R3
> >
> > router ospf 1
> > distance 180 195.1.3.3 0.0.0.0 1
> >
> > However, instead of doing this, if I tried to decrease the Admin Dist
> of
> > EIGRP route
> > from R2 (via Tunnel). It doesn't work.
> >
> > I think it's because R2 actually got the route via OSPF as well, hence
> > even now
> > EIGRP has a lower Admin Dist than OSPF at R4, R2 would have no EIGRP
> route
> > (150.1.30.0/24) for distribute into R4.
> >
> > Am I right?
> >
> >
> > Second: for question 3 under H.
> >
> > 3. Configure a DLSW+ session between R3 & R4 direct over the
> Frame-relay
> > network.
> >
> >
> > I think it has been done by:
> >
> > dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.1.4.4
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface Serial0/0 403
> > dlsw bridge-group 1
> >
> > Am I right?
> >
> > If so, is there any reason why I would need to use frame-relay map
> llc2
> > 403
> > broadcast command? Is this command always required for DLSW Lite
> config?
> >
> >
> > Thanks so much for the help in advance,
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lee
> >
> > http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
> > - What's on at your local cinema?
> > .
http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
- Send some online love this Valentine's Day.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:11 GMT-3