From: Sila Moni (silamoni@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jun 29 2005 - 16:11:14 GMT-3
Someone here mentioned to me the other day. You can
used distance to poison the route or you can use
prefix to filter to achieve the same thing. Make sure
that your tunnel source is not learned via OSPF.
Otherwise, you're going to experience recursive route
problem.
--- Gustavo Novais <gustavo.novais@novabase.pt> wrote:
> Apparently I had a dumb config problem on R7...
> Duhhh... It's working
> now.
> Either way, any way how to solve recursive routing
> situation I
> presented?
> Thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Gustavo Novais
> Sent: quarta-feira, 29 de Junho de 2005 19:33
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OSPF Virtual Link and GRE tunnel.
>
> Hello group
>
> I have a topology like this.
>
>
Area0--(R2)---Area25---(R5)---Area57----(R7)----Area78----(R9)
>
> It showed up on a exercise in order to test
> Virtual-links etc.
> I did it using vlink between R5 and R2 for area 57
> reachability and a
> vlink between R7 and R5 for area 78 reachability.
>
> But I'd like to try the same topology using GRE
> tunnel between R7 and
> R2.
> If I extend Area 0 onto interface tunnel on R7, I
> get recursive routing
> and the tunnel goes down. (OSPF will prefer intra
> area routes vs extra
> area routes, so the preferred path to the tunnel
> destination is through
> the tunnel itself, which shuts it down.
>
> If I extend area 78 to R2 Tunnel, apparently all is
> well, but the
> problem is that R5 starts complaining that Received
> invalid packet:
> mismatch area ID, from backbone area must be
> virtual-link but not found
> from 150.50.57.7, Ethernet0/0, even now that area 78
> is connected
> directly to area 0, and area 57 still has its vlink
> on R5 to Area 0.
>
> Any ideas why is the router R5 showing this
> behaviour? Any suggestions
> how to correct it?
>
> Thanks
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:45 GMT-3