From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 16:21:55 GMT-3
That would be very true, except for the fact that I'm aware of the lab that
he's working on, and ACLs aren't allowed.
So, the problem is intended to appear to highlight the problem, and the
intended solution would be to work around it.
Sooo... Yup, very good point that once you recognize it, you should make it
go away ahead of time. But every once and a while you aren't allowed to do
the "normal" things to make that so simple.
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
JNCIP, et al.
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
http://www.ipexpert.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McGahan [mailto:bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:33 PM
To: Scott Morris; tycampbell@comcast.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: recursive routing
Scott,
If you want to recognize the problem, then alleviate it, why would
you even advertise the tunnel destination into the protocol running over the
tunnel? :) There is never a valid case where the tunnel destination can be
routed via the tunnel, so why go out of the way to fix a problem that
shouldn't exist in the first place?
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Scott Morris
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:15 PM
> To: tycampbell@comcast.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: recursive routing
>
> Think distance man! :)
>
> The problem with recursive routing (on a tunnel interface) is when the
> router decides it wants to get to the other side of the tunnel
> (tunnel-destination ip) through the tunnel itself. It brings about
one of
> those philosophical quandaries in life.
>
> So think like the router does. Routing is just fine before the tunnel
> comes up, learning through RIP, right? After the tunnel comes up, the
router
> learns the same route through OSPF. OSPF is preferred. Why? AD.
>
> So... Recognize the problem, then alleviate it! Make the router do
what
> you want. :)
>
> Change the distance for that route (either in OSPF or in RIP,
depending on
> your lab requirements) and life will be better. The same decision
factor
> for that route should bring the same result both before and after the
> tunnel is created.
>
> HTH,
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
CISSP,
> JNCIP, et al.
> IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
> IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
> http://www.ipexpert.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> tycampbell@comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:56 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: recursive routing
>
> I have searched the doc cd...over and over..even searched on google.
>
> I am looking for a way to fix recursive routing through a tunnel
without
> using static routes..
>
>
> anyone have any ideas ?
>
>
> Thanks!!!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:50 GMT-3