From: Kenneth Wygand (KWygand@customonline.com)
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 02:10:09 GMT-3
Alsontra,
I don't understand what you mean when you say "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." The configuration you have listed simply prevents loops from a potential "chained" redistribution. It just "tags" routes so once they pass through one distribution, they will not be redistributed back to the original protocol.
Can you please explain further, and let us know what routing protocols are running on which routers?
Thanks!
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com on behalf of alsontra@hotmail.com
Sent: Sat 1/24/2004 8:36 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc:
Subject: OSPF, EIGRP redistribution
****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
_______________________________________________________________________
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 - 09:07:50 GMT-3