From: Dillon Yang (gzdillon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 11:34:00 GMT-3
Hi, Jongsoo:
1. The strategy of topology may be wrong.
I think it is better to do it ONE time not step by step as you said.
2. The redistribution may be repetitious.
The "deny" ACL(way01) vs the "distance"(way02).
for instance: (This is from the course of CCNP)
R1-----------ospf-------------R2
rip...........................rip
R3-----------rip--------------R4----vlan4
vlan3
:way01
If you forbid the rip routes passing from R1 to R2, then vlan3 can not access vlan4 when link "34" is broken, then the redundancy is useless.
:way02
It is the best way for multipoint of redistribution while it keeps the redundancy. R2 knows the rip routes from R1 all are AD=121, so it choose R4 as next-hop normally. When link "34" is broken, R2 uses the AD=121 route for the connectivity between R3 and R4.
Maybe it is too complex to realize in the real lab, right? Maybe cisco do not have the redundance requirement. But I believe you must take it into consideration when the loop link exists.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:52 GMT-3