From: Rohan Grover \(rohang\) (rohang@cisco.com)
Date: Tue Aug 09 2005 - 06:33:44 GMT-3
Hi,
Some questions regarding the lab
1. Since RIP1 is not on the lab, would it be fair to say that if the RIP
section does not specify anything particular it is ok to configure
'version 2' and 'no auto-summary'?
2. In ISIS, when it is mentioned, configure R1 in net 69 and R2 in net
25, why is it that these nets are interpreted as areas in the answers?
what I mean is, why can I not configure R1 net as '69.1111.1111.1111.00'
instead of '47.0069.1111.1111.1111.00'?
3. For ATM questions when not specified in the question as to where a
pvc/svc is to be configured, can I configure them on the main interface
or do I need to create multipoint subinterface?
4. Lastly, I am pretty comfortable using distance prevent routing loops
etc but I'm a little confused as to how route tagging will achieve the
same thing
ex
R1---------R2-------------R4
| |
|-----------R3--------------|
R1,R2, R3 are on the same ethernet LAN and running OSPF.
R2,R3,R4 are on a different network running EIGRP.
Now, we need to do something to prevent route feedback while doing
mutual redistribution on R2 and R3. Controlling this with distance is
fine, but I was also under the impression that using the following route
tags on R2 and R3 will also prevent route feedback.
route-map o2e deny 10
match tag 110
route-map o2e permit 20
set tag 90
route-map e2o deny 10
match tag 90
route-map e2o permit 20
set tag 110
This does not work :-(. In fact after having applied both these
route-maps on R2 and R3, I see routing table flap...EIGRP route appear
disappear.
Any help would really be appreciated.
Thanks
Rohan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:18 GMT-3