From: Donny MATEO (donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 05:13:05 GMT-3
Hi Emad,
I was refering specific to EIGRP/IGRP. From previous experience, EIGRP/IGRP will not advertise any route (either internal or external) that it received from another peer router, if that particular route has already exist (in your case it's connected
network). As for other IGP, you will need to test it out yourself or perhaps someone can fill in some info ( I have no equipment to test at the moment, but it's really not all that difficult, just throw in a static route and see if the peer is still
receiving the route )
For your second question, the answer is to ask the proctor for confirmation. I will generally put it on the most reliable routing protocol.
Donny
"Emad "
<emad@zakq8.com> To: "'Donny MATEO'" <donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com>
cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>, <nobody@groupstudy.com>
07/04/2003 03:43 Subject: RE: Redistribution inquiry
PM
Donyy,
Does your point of view applies also between :
-Bgp vs. ospf
-Bgp vs. Rip
- Bgp vs. Eigrp
-OSPF vs. rip
-OSPF vs. eigrp
- rip vs. eigrp
Regarding the same scenario if happened between each couple of the above
, what will be the preferred protocol to redistribute connected under it
if he didn't define or state where to put exactly?
Thanx a lot
-----Original Message-----
From: Donny MATEO [mailto:donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Emad
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Redistribution inquiry
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