From: alsontra@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 24 2004 - 22:36:44 GMT-3
****Let me start by saying I've read about 100 posts on this subject, but I
haven't found a definitive answer. ****
I am working on scenario that involves mutual distribution of OSPF and EIGRP
using route maps. The topology looks something like this:
--------R5--------
| |
R6 R2
| |
-------SW1------
Using the following route maps on R2 and R6:
<snip>
route-map OSPF-TO-EIGRP deny 10
match tag 111
!
route-map OSPF-TO-EIGRP permit 20
set tag 90
!
route-map EIGRP-TO-OSPF deny 10
match tag 90
!
route-map EIGRP-TO-OSPF permit 20
set tag 111
!
</snip>
R6 and R2 are doing mutual distribution using route-maps and all is well
until I advertise any networks connected to SW1. As I understand it, this
configuration causes either R6 or R2 to become an ASBR and that ASBR then
advertises all routes learned from SW1. Which puts you in situation that
causes less than optimal routing on R6 or R2.
Is it possible to use "just" route tagging in a mutual OSPF-EIGRP
retribution situation and avoid less that optimal routing? I know from
previous posts that I can use the distance command in the following fashion
to elevate the situation. <see below> However, is route tagging alone
capable of solving mutual distribution scenarios without causing less than
optimal routing? Or is it just possible that I've misconfigured something
somewhere, and that's the cause of the less that optimal routing?
access-list 10 permit <networks>
access-list 10 permit <networks>
and applying it under router OSPF:
router ospf 100
distance 171 <neighbors address> 255.255.255.255 10
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 09:07:49 GMT-3