From: Arvind.yadav@comcast.net
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 04:56:36 GMT-3
Jeff
If the BGP route is in different major network then the tunnel interface, in
that case RIP will summarize that it to classfull boundary. If it is same
major network and has same mask as tunnel interface then RIP should
advertise that route. Other end RIP routers will ignore the RIP
advertisement if it already has any route for same major network (BGP route)
learned vai any other interface.
Arvind
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Nelson" <jnelson@rackspace.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:01 PM
Subject: logic check--solving vlsm issue with tunnel interface
> Problem: redistribute bgp route into RIPv1 to solve vlsm issue without
changing original prefix.
> the connecting interface is a /24 the route is a /22
>
>
> Method:
> redistributing bgp route (that is in table) into RIP via route-map
> creating a tunnel with a /22 subnet between the two routers and enabling
rip on it
>
> Desired result:
> RIP should advertise that /22 over the tunnel and it should appear in the
forwarding table since it heard the update for it over a /22 interface--even
if it is a different major network.
>
> It seems sound, but debug rip database does not show the route being
advertised and thus it is not in the table. I can make the same
redistribution (even without the subnets option) in OSPF and it gets
propagated. So, I know it is not the route-map or the access-list. It must
be something I'm not understanding about the classful restrictions
associated with RIP, but I thought that this was a method of overcoming this
obstacle.
>
> pointers appreciated.
> --
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 09:07:36 GMT-3