From: Andy (skystock51@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 17:44:45 GMT-3
Can we conf on the R2 to change the distance?
--- nenad pudar <nenad.pudar@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!
> > > >
> > > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:22 GMT-3