From: john matus (jmatus@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 21:56:26 GMT-3
thanks phil, yes it certianly does help give me a bit more insite to the
whole subject. sometimes i don't see the reason for a route-map, especially
since you usually WANT all the routes to be redistributed.....seems a bit
redundant in that sort of situation
Regards,
John D. Matus
MCSE, CCNP
818.782.2061 office
818.430.8372 mobile
jmatus@pacbell.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil" <theccie@gmail.com>
To: "john matus" <jmatus@pacbell.net>
Cc: "lab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: redistribution best practices...?
> John,
>
> You can call me redistribution nuts, but I always use the route-maps,
> even when they are not necessary:
>
> NO TAG:
> (when redistributing with IGP that do not support Tags)
>
> access-list 1 permit 172.16.5.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 1 permit 172.16.56.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 1 permit 172.16.35.0 0.0.0.255
> (RIPv1 routes)
>
> route-map only-rip permit 10
> match ip address 1
>
> route-map no-rip deny 10
> match ip address 1
> route-map no-rip permit 20
>
> router igrp 10
> redistribute ospf 5 metric 1 1 1 1 1 route-map no-rip
>
> router ospf 5
> redistribute igrp 10 subnets route-map only-rip
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> TAG:
>
> route-map eigrp2ospf deny 10
> match tag 110
> route-map eigrp2ospf permit 20
> set tag 90
>
> route-map ospf2eigrp deny 10
> match tag 90
> route-map ospf2eigrp permit 20
> set tag 110
>
> router eigrp 100
> reditribute ospf 5 metric 1 1 1 1 1 route-map ospf2eigrp
>
> router ospf 5
> redistribute eigrp 100 subnets route-map eigrp2ospf
>
> HTH,
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 02:20:19 -0700, john matus <jmatus@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > got a question regarding redistribution between igp's....
> > when you redistribute between, say, ospf and rip on the topology below
> >
> > rip rip/ospf ospf
> > ----R1--------------------------R2----------------------------R3---
> >
> > is it the norm to apply a route-map on R2 that would specifically permit
> > routes from r1 or r3? for example, lets say you had a loopback address
and an
> > ethernet subnet attached to R1 under rip, should you configure r2 as
follows?
> >
> > router ospf
> > redistribute rip sub route-map rip2ospf
> >
> > route-m rip2ospf permit 10
> > match ip address 1
> >
> > access-l 1 permit <lo0>
> > access-l 1 permit <e0> ?
> >
> > it seems to me that you would only do something like this if you were
> > specifically trying to avoid redistributing specific routes, but in the
case
> > that you are not denying any prefixes, what is the advantage, if any, by
doing
> > this <avoiding routing loops possibly?....something else?>
> > i've always done my redistribution without the route-maps so i'm curious
about
> > the ideology <i'm using ipexperts lab manual tonight and they go
route-map
> > CRAZY!!!>
> >
> > thanks in advance for your input!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John D. Matus
> > MCSE, CCNP
> > 818.782.2061 office
> > 818.430.8372 mobile
> > jmatus@pacbell.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:33 GMT-3