From: nenad pudar (nenad.pudar@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 17:32:48 GMT-3
The answer above is right one if you do not need to see exact /24
addresses(then you can do the summariization)
You said you acheived that by changing the distance on R1 ,I am
wondering how since distance is local to the router and it is not
carried in routing update.
Actually this triggers the question that I already asked myself
z:what goal Cisco had in mind by adding the distance option for
summary route..
nenad
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:06:41 -0000, simon hart
<simon.hart@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Sundar's answer is right
>
> The question you put states that R2 and R3 should see an admin distance of
> 90.
>
> Some of the replies have suggested that you change the admin distance on R1,
> however admin distance is only locally significant. If you change the
> distance to 90 of the 172.168.1.0 routes on R1, R2 and R3 will still see
> them as EIGRP external routes and add their own admin distance of 170. Thus
> distance will not help in this situation.
>
> In fact one does need to add the 90 on the end of the summary statement.
> The summary addresses will be seen as internal to the eigrp 100 process and
> thus R2 and R3 will automatically apply an admin distance of 90.
>
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Sundar Palaniappan
> Sent: 18 February 2005 16:34
> To: joshua lauer
> Cc: Lee Donald; Nathasha Aleyevka; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: EIGRP Challenge!
>
> Config you need on R1 is:
>
> int f0/0
> ip summary-address eigrp 100 172.168.0.0 255.255.252.0 90
> ip summary-address eigrp 100 172.168.4.0 255.255.254.0 90
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --Sundar Palaniappan
>
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:16:12 -0500, joshua lauer <jslauer@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I was thinking the same way. Nathasha, this is interesting what scenario
> > book are you using or is this one you made up? Just curious, I'm going to
> > try it out. Right off hand cant think of anything other than modifying the
> > distance on R1.
> >
> > josh
> >
> > Joshua Lauer
> >
> > RHCE, MCSE, CCNA, CCDA, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP, CCSP,INFOSEC, CEH
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lee Donald" <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk>
> > To: "Nathasha Aleyevka" <naleyevka@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:42 AM
> > Subject: RE: EIGRP Challenge!
> >
> > > Try the distance command on R1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nathasha Aleyevka [mailto:naleyevka@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: 18 February 2005 15:21
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: EIGRP Challenge!
> > >
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I have been working on the following scenario:
> > >
> > > | \ / |-----------------F0/0-R2
> > > | EIGRP \ / |
> > > | 101 \ / EIGRP 100 |
> > > |--------------------R1-f0/0-------------- | 10.123.10.0/24
> > > | --> / \ |
> > > | / \
> |-------------------F0/0-R3
> > > BB1 / \
> > >
> > > R1 is running 2 EIGRP processes, EIGRP 101 to BB1 and EIGRP 100 to R2
> and
> > > R3
> > > From BB1 Im receiveing the following routes:
> > > 172.168.1.0/24
> > > 172.168.2.0/24
> > > 172.168.3.0/24
> > > 172.168.4.0/24
> > > 172.168.5.0/24
> > > On R1, I redistributed between the 2 processes, therefore R2 and R3 have
> > > all
> > > the 172.168.x.x/24 routes in the routing table with an admin distance of
> > > 170. So far so good.
> > > To meet the requirements, R2 and R3 should see these routes with and
> admin
> > > distance of 90, the config must be done on R1 and I am not allowed:
> > > NOT ALLOWED to modify the administrative distance on R1
> > > NOT allowed to use route maps
> > > NOT allowed to use distribution lists/
> > >
> > > I was able to get it to work with route maps and modified the admin
> > > distance, unfortunately that doesnt meet the requirements. Any
> > > suggestions(!)
> > > It is much appreciated
> > > Thank you
> > > Nathasha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:22 GMT-3