From: Daniel Sheedy (dansheedy@gmx.net)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 03:54:41 GMT-3
Hi everyone,
Maybe a silly question here, but I never did understand the reasoning behind
restricting routes with an access list/prefix list. Maybe someone could
explain the logic to me.
I was always under the impression that if you are in a situation where you
could have potential routing loops, then this is an opportunity to have a
backup route, if the first route disappears. Isn't it better to use
Distance to prefer one route over another? This way, if your preferred
route disappears out of town, you can still get to the target with the
backup route, as your backup routes with the higher and nonprefered distance
suddenly begin to look desirable to the router. If you have filtered out
the route on the backup route, then what happens when your primary route
goes down? Sort of leaves a hole doesn't it?
Any comments as to what I'm not seeing?
Dan Sheedy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rohan Grover" <rohang@cisco.com>
To: "'Mike Dickson'" <Mike@dicksonnetworks.com>; "'group study'"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: Redistribution Methodology
> Hi,
>
> A related question.
>
> If the specific redistribution scenario restricts the use of access-lists,
would prefix-list be an alternative?
>
> Or would route-tagging be the expected answer?
>
> Thanks
> Rohan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:48 GMT-3