From: info@mpauli.de
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 09:46:21 GMT-3
Hi Navid,
well I'm not using this technique via route-map but via distance, here is an example:
router rip
version 2
passive-interface Serial0/0
passive-interface TokenRing0/0
passive-interface Loopback0
network 133.10.0.0
network 150.100.0.0
neighbor 150.100.1.253
distance 255
distance 120 150.100.1.253 0.0.0.0 10
distance 120 150.100.1.254 0.0.0.0 20
!
access-list 10 remark Permit only 192.177.ODD].0/24
access-list 10 permit 192.177.1.0 0.0.254.255
access-list 10 permit 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 20 remark Permit only 192.177.[EVEN].0/24
access-list 20 permit 192.177.0.0 0.0.254.255
access-list 20 permit 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
Hope I could help...
Cheers
Marcus
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Re: Mutual redistribution. (28-Sep-2003 14:30)
From: navaid@rogers.com
To: cbsnow31@yahoo.com
> Chris,
> you suggested to use route-map to drop AD. Where this route-map will be
> applied ?
>
> Navaid.
>
> >
> > From: christopher snow <cbsnow31@yahoo.com>
> > Date: 2003/09/28 Sun AM 07:12:02 EDT
> > To: chipn@intraworx.net
> > CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Mutual redistribution.
> >
> > Doyle covers this in TCP/IP Vol I very well in the
> > redistribution section. I have adopted his method and
> > it works every time. He uses the distance command and
> > sets both protocols above their normal distance...
> > i.e. if you were doing EIGRP and OSPF set both
> > protocols at 130. Then use route maps to drop the
> > selected routes back to their normal distance within
> > each protocol. This prevents route feedback and
> > establishes redundancy if you have more than one point
> > of redistribution.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Chris Snow
> >
> > --- chipn@intraworx.net wrote:
> > > I'm looking for opinion on lab strategy.
> > >
> > > If you encounter a mutual redistribution scenario
> > > with multiple
> > > redistributions points on the lab, would it be in
> > > your best interest to
> > > explictly control your routing information to
> > > prevent route feedback? It
> > > is possible to have complete connectivity in this
> > > scenario without
> > > filtering, but still have the potential for routing
> > > loops.
> > >
> > > I thought this would be the best place to get some
> > > expert advice on the
> > > subject.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > ***Get your CCIE and a FREE vacation:
> > > Shop.GroupStudy.com***
> > >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your
> > > study materials from:
> > > shop.groupstudy.com
> > >
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com
> >
> > ***Get your CCIE and a FREE vacation: Shop.GroupStudy.com***
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> > shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
> 1
>
> ***Get your CCIE and a FREE vacation: Shop.GroupStudy.com***
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
To: navaid@rogers.com
chipn@intraworx.net
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
***Get your CCIE and a FREE vacation: Shop.GroupStudy.com***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 07:24:39 GMT-3