From: Carlos (cchorao@xtra.co.nz)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 14:42:58 GMT-3
Rich ,
My suggestion is to be familiar with each approach. On the day
instructions / typology may dictate. My home lab comprises mainly 2600's
and I have not noticed any issues with the tag/distance method (which
happens to be my preference)
Cheers
Carlos
#11351
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Davidson [mailto:rich@myhomemail.net]
Sent: 01 May 2003 08:02
To: Carlos; Jason Graun; 'Ivan'; 'Richard Davidson'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: mutual redistribution
I have read the Netmaster white paper and even
configured it in my rack. From that I understand the
following.
The distance command helps for redundancy when doing
mutual redistribution.
If I was to do regular filtering I would still have to
use the distance command for routes originating from
R4 (see ASCII diagram) and redistributed into ospf on
both R2, and R3.
Rip2 and route tagging on the 2600 doesn't work well
if at all. It's a bug. I haven't tested it. I don't
remember the bug id number but I do recall reading it.
2600 is what the lab is mostly made up of.
Any comments?
Rich Davidson
--- Carlos <cchorao@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> rip2 does.
>
> rip1 does not
>
>
>
>
> Carlos Chorao (CCIE 11351 R&S)
>
> Senior Technical Consultant
> Telecom New Zealand
> Advanced Solutions Group -Network Design and
> Security
>
> Network Security and Design
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Graun" <jgraun@attbi.com>
> To: "'Carlos'" <cchorao@xtra.co.nz>; "'Ivan'"
> <limmti@yahoo.com.sg>;
> "'Richard Davidson'" <rich@myhomemail.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 6:06 AM
> Subject: RE: mutual redistribution
>
>
> > Yes but RIP doesn't support route tagging
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Carlos
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:43 AM
> > To: Ivan; Richard Davidson
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: mutual redistribution
> >
> > Route tagging works as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > Carlos Chorao (CCIE 11351 R&S)
> >
> > Senior Technical Consultant
> > Telecom New Zealand
> > Advanced Solutions Group -Network Design and
> Security
> >
> > Network Security and Design
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ivan" <limmti@yahoo.com.sg>
> > To: "Richard Davidson" <rich@myhomemail.net>
> > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: mutual redistribution
> >
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > >
> > > If you are doing a multipoint mutual
> redistribution,
> > > you will encounter the issue of route feedback.
> By
> > > adjusting the admin distance itself will not be
> able
> > > to overcome this problem.
> > >
> > > In the case of mutual redistribution, I think we
> have
> > > to use route filtering (eg distribute-list).
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Ivan
> > >
> > > --- Richard Davidson <rich@myhomemail.net>
> wrote: >
> > > When you are doing mutual redistribution between
> two
> > > > or more routers should you use route filtering
> or
> > > > just
> > > > rely on the distance command. If you filter
> you
> > > > will
> > > > lose the redundancy and still need the
> distance
> > > > command. When should I filter based route and
> when
> > > > should I use the Distance command?
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Rich
> > > >
> > > > <->
> > > > OSPF|RIP
> > > > |-------R2---|
> > > > r1 ---< |--R4
> > > > |-------R3---|
> > > > OSPF|RIP
> > > > <->
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Promote your business from just $5 a month!
> > > http://sg.biztools.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:35 GMT-3