From: Brian Dennis (bdennis@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 00:51:08 GMT-3
The RIP routes can not re-enter OSPF unless you have altered OSPF's
administrative distance to be higher than RIP or the route itself has
changed (i.e. via auto-summary).
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Jongsoo kim
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:38 PM
To: Dillon Yang
Cc: Group Study
Subject: Re: Redistribution in Jongsoo's checklist
See below.
On Apr 3, 2005 10:34 AM, Dillon Yang <gzdillon@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
###### just note my way 01 in my checklist is to block rip routes from
R1 to R3 or from R2 to R4 in order to prevent rip routes re-entering
via OSPF.
> :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.
####### Yes this is the case.
> 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.
##### Oh I have seen pretty compliacted multi-exit routing in one of
my attempt. It is absolutely necessary to handle multi-exiting mutual
redistribuion.
Regards
Jongsoo from RTP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:52 GMT-3