From: Jongsoo kim (bstrt2002@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 01:10:19 GMT-3
Thanks Brian for correcting me
Dillion, I meant my way 01 is to block rip routes entering from R1 to
R3 via redistribute OSPF under Router rip.
Jongsoo
On Apr 3, 2005 11:51 PM, Brian Dennis <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:52 GMT-3