From: christopher snow (cbsnow31@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 12:06:10 GMT-3
Actually, I was at work and was typing and thinking at
the same time. I was incorrect... I use the distance
command and reference an ACL for the routes, not a
route map. I should never try to do 2 things at
once....
Chris
--- navaid@rogers.com wrote:
> 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***
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 07:24:39 GMT-3