From: Donny MATEO (donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 04:27:55 GMT-3
because generally, IGRP and EIGRP would not advertised a route learned through redistribution if the route is already known by other more reliable means, in this case it's connected route. It does not make sense for EIGRP/IGRP to advertise the connected
route as there is an entry in the routing table indicating the route is known as connected. So obviously when IGRP/EIGRP received the route from RIP (by means of redistribution), It would discard the route, taking into the account the route is already
known as locally connected, which might not be the case for RIP. Therefore you're advised to make this connectednetwork part of EIGRP/IGRP or to put the redistribute connected at IGRP/EIGRP instead of at RIP.
Hope that helps.
Donny
"Emad "
<emad@zakq8.com> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Donny MATEO/ADPC/ASIA/BANQUE_INDOSUEZ/FR)
nobody@groupstudy Subject: Redistribution inquiry
.com
07/04/2003 03:16
PM
Please respond to
"Emad "
Folks,
This is a point that I didn't discover it from any resource,
In Jeff Doyle (tcp/ip vol 1) page 716 line 4,
When we have a router having some interfaces inside RIP and others
inside IGRP , and one interface as stub network (not stub area) , the
author preferred to put the network of this interface under IGRP not RIP
(why!!?)
As redistribute connected , why specifically under rip ? and what is
wrong if we put it under rip?
Please I need opinion generally putting a rule between any two routing
protocols not these two specifically.
thanx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:23 GMT-3