From: Barry Templeton (barryt28078@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 18:56:59 GMT-3
There was a bug that caused the Tag to be ignored on
RIP routes when redistributing. I just tried to find
it on CCO but no luck.
--- gladston@br.ibm.com wrote:
> Hope this is a bug (otherwise I must getting crazy).
>
> R2 redistribute a route it should not. Version is
> 12.2(1d).
>
> R2 is connected to R3 (RIP). R3 is connected to R4
> (RIP). R4 is connected to
> R1 (OSPF). R4 redistributes routes from OSPF into
> RIP using tag 4110.
>
> 172.16.3.0 is R3 loopback
> 172.16.1.0 is R1 loopback
>
> In its routing table, R2 has 172.16.1.0 with tag
> 4110 and 172.16.3.0 without
> tag.
>
> r2#sir 172.16.1.0
> Routing entry for 172.16.1.0/24
> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 3
> Tag 4110
> Redistributing via ospf 1, rip
> Advertised by ospf 1 subnets route-map Tag2120
> Last update from 172.16.23.3 on Serial0, 00:00:21
> ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 172.16.23.3, from 172.16.23.3, 00:00:21 ago, via
> Serial0
> Route metric is 3, traffic share count is 1
>
>
> r2#sir 172.16.3.0
> Routing entry for 172.16.3.0/24
> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 1
> Redistributing via ospf 1, rip
> Advertised by ospf 1 subnets route-map Tag2120
> Last update from 172.16.23.3 on Serial0, 00:00:07
> ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 172.16.23.3, from 172.16.23.3, 00:00:07 ago, via
> Serial0
> Route metric is 1, traffic share count is 1
>
> R2 is configured to redistribute just routes with
> tag 4110 (172.16.1.0) but
> it also redistributes route without tag (172.16.3.0)
>
> router ospf 1
> log-adjacency-changes
> redistribute rip subnets route-map Tag2120
> network 172.16.24.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> network 172.16.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> network 172.17.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> !
> route-map Tag2120 permit 5
> match tag 4110
>
>
> I tried it another way, explicit denying routes with
> Tag4110, but it still transmit the route:
>
> R2# show run | be route-map Tag
> route-map Tag permit 5
> match tag 4000
> !
> route-map Tag deny 10
> match tag 4110
>
> r5#sir 172.16.1.0
> Routing entry for 172.16.1.0/24
> Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20
> Tag 4110, type extern 2, forward metric 64
> Last update from 172.17.25.2 on Serial0, 04:23:38
> ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 172.17.25.2, from 172.16.2.2, 04:23:38 ago, via
> Serial0
> Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1
>
> r5#
> r5#sir 172.16.3.0
> Routing entry for 172.16.3.0/24
> Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20, type
> extern 2, forward metric 64
> Last update from 172.17.25.2 on Serial0, 04:23:42
> ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 172.17.25.2, from 172.16.2.2, 04:23:42 ago, via
> Serial0
> Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1
>
> If I invert the order (deny 4110 first) then the
> route without tag is also denied. It seems R2 does
> not differentiate a route with tag and a route
> without tag.
>
> r2#c
> Enter configuration commands, one per line. End
> with CNTL/Z.
> r2(config)#route-map Tag deny 1
> r2(config-route-map)#match tag 4110
>
> r5#sir 172.16.1.0
> % Subnet not in table
> r5#
> r5#sir 172.16.1.0
> % Subnet not in table
> r5#
>
> Any comments?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:50 GMT-3