From: anil.p@helpdesk.netsol.co.in
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 02:25:26 GMT-3
Hi Jens
You are right.
Anil P
-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Petter Eikeland [mailto:jenseike@start.no]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 9:56 AM
To: anil.p@helpdesk.netsol.co.in; fjtm@tid.es; zero5291@gmail.com;
nobody@groupstudy.com
Cc: DSchulz@dpsciences.com; oletu@inbox.lv; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
Subject: SV: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
When you under the router eigrp command f ex do the network 172.16.1.0
0.0.0.255 ==> when you do this, the logic of how the router works is that
the router will "run" the command redistributed connected route-map
localnet, route-map localnet permit loopback 1 (if the ip address of
loopback 1 is 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0.
That is why this routing issue happens. The redistribute connected under
ospf process will "disable" this command that the routers run, and if you
not allowing this loopbac under that ospf redistribute connected process it
will disapere.. Using the wildcard mask will not solve the issue at all. You
should lab it up and test, or even read that link to NLI. This is something
you need to think of always when you do redistribute connected on a router
where there are two routing processes running. It is quite hard to
understand why this happens, but trust me it do, even when you use the
wildcard mask, as you indicate.
Jens Petter Eikeland
_____
Fra: anil.p@helpdesk.netsol.co.in [mailto:anil.p@helpdesk.netsol.co.in]
Sendt: 23. september 2005 05:50
Til: fjtm@tid.es; zero5291@gmail.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
Kopi: DSchulz@dpsciences.com; oletu@inbox.lv; jenseike@start.no;
ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
Emne: RE: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
Viktighet: Hxy
Hi All,
I think Eigrp advertise connected interface bydefault but that interface ip
address should cover in network statement in Eigrp route process-id
configuration. That is why I always use wildcard mask in Eigrp process.
What do you all say ?
Anil
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] On Behalf Of Javier Tomi
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:03 PM
To: Ali.Huang
Cc: Schulz, Dave; Godswill Oletu; Jens Petter Eikeland;
ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
Subject: Re: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
The problem you are talking about is known as implicit redistribution.
Take a look at his link to an Alexei post on NMC (great post on
redistribution issue by the way). Search "implicit redistribution"...
http://bbs.netmasterclass.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/4966010365/m/379105676
<http://bbs.netmasterclass.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/4966010365/m/379105676
>
You will need to register, but the information is really worthy...
JT
Ali.Huang wrote:
>Thanks,Jens,Repeat again,
>R1(s0.1)---ospf(1.1.12.0/29)-----(s0)R2(e0)---eigrp(1.1.14.0/24
><javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.0/29-----s0R2e0---eigrp1.1.14.0/24',1);
<http://1.1.12.0/29-----s0R2e0---eigrp1.1.14.0/24',1);> >)
>and R2 loopback0 1.1.2.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.2.2/',1);
<http://1.1.2.2/',1);> >
>First,no redistribute connected configured,
>R2:
>router ospf 10
>router-id 2.2.2.2 <javascript:dl('http://2.2.2.2/',1);
<http://2.2.2.2/',1);> >
>redistribute eigrp 1 metric-type 1 subnets route-map filtertag
>network 1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1);
<http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >
>0.0.0.0<javascript:dl('http://0.0.0.0/',1); <http://0.0.0.0/',1);> >area 0
>default-metric 150
>route-map CON permit 10
>match interface Loopback0
>R1 routing table,the cost of subnet(
>1.1.14.0/24<javascript:dl('http://1.1.14.0/24',1);
<http://1.1.14.0/24',1);> >)
>was equal to 150 plus 100000000/1544. From this,it seems like
redistribution
>by EIGRP,not connected directly.
>O E1 1.1.14.0/24 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.14.0/24',1);
<http://1.1.14.0/24',1);> > [110/214] via
>1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1); <http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >,
00:00:01, Serial0.1
>and issues redistribute connected route-map CON.
>R2:
>router ospf 10
>router-id 2.2.2.2 <javascript:dl('http://2.2.2.2/',1);
<http://2.2.2.2/',1);> >
>redistribute connected metric-type 1 subnets route-map CON
>redistribute eigrp 1 metric-type 1 subnets route-map filtertag
>network 1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1);
<http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >
>0.0.0.0<javascript:dl('http://0.0.0.0/',1); <http://0.0.0.0/',1);> >area 0
>default-metric 150
>route-map CON permit 10
>match interface Loopback0
>
>And the 1.1.14.0/29 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.14.0/29',1);
<http://1.1.14.0/29',1);> >disappeared in
>R1 routing table and filter.
>O E1 1.1.2.0/24 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.2.0/24',1);
<http://1.1.2.0/24',1);> > [110/84] via
>1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1); <http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >,
00:00:02, Serial0.1
>
>next I add R2 e0 to route-map,
>route-map CON permit 10
>match interface Loopback0
>route-map CON permit 20
>match interface Ethernet0
>router ospf 10
>router-id 2.2.2.2 <javascript:dl('http://2.2.2.2/',1);
<http://2.2.2.2/',1);> >
>redistribute connected metric-type 1 subnets route-map CON
>redistribute eigrp 1 metric-type 1 subnets route-map filtertag
>network 1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1);
<http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >
>0.0.0.0<javascript:dl('http://0.0.0.0/',1); <http://0.0.0.0/',1);> >area 0
>default-metric 150
>Here is the R1 routing table.The cost is 84.
>O E1 1.1.2.0/24 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.2.0/24',1);
<http://1.1.2.0/24',1);> > [110/84] via
>1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1); <http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >,
00:04:53, Serial0.1
>O E1 1.1.14.0/24 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.14.0/24',1);
<http://1.1.14.0/24',1);> > [110/84] via
>1.1.12.2 <javascript:dl('http://1.1.12.2/',1); <http://1.1.12.2/',1);> >,
00:00:19, Serial0.1
>It works,but the cost are different before do redistribute connected.
>The default-metric didn't force its cost to connected network,only working
>for routing protocol.
>Maybe the directly connection has high preference,becasue I do another
>scenario,they has equal AD,the lower cost wasn't in routing table when I
>change the cost by redistribute xxx metirc cost to control routing.
>
>On 9/13/05, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I labbed up what Jens provided originally when I got home from work
>>today (cause I didn't believe it either). And.... it works just like he
>>says. Someone else mentioned that it happens to due to the RIB election
>>by having the best path. This makes since now, since a connected route
>>has a higher preference than a learned route.
>>
>>I then added the interfaces in the route-map (as described) and each one
>>was redistributed as they were added. Very interesting! I did not know
>>this. The question now is....does this happen with other types of
>>redistribution (other than just from eigrp to ospf). This could be
>>something to watch out for in the real lab.
>>
>>Thanks for the interesting lab scenario!
>>
>>
>>Dave Schulz
>>Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] On Behalf Of
>>Godswill Oletu
>>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:12 PM
>>To: Jens Petter Eikeland; zero5291@gmail.com
>>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
>>Subject: Re: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>
>>Jens,
>>
>>I do not know how clearer, I could be,
>>however..............................
>>
>>I never knew this was a task with some restrictions and the original
>>post
>>did not indicate that, as a result it was easy to deduce that he was
>>just
>>trying to resolve a reachability problem in his network. I was also
>>trying
>>to make it clear that the 'redistribute eigrp 1' statement was still in
>>effect and working as implemented.
>>
>>That said, depending on the restrictions in place, this can be resolved
>>by
>>various means, eg:
>>
>>1. network e0 under ospf process
>>2. summary address
>>3.
>>#route-map con permit 10
>>#match interface loopback0
>>#match interface ethernet0
>>
>>4.
>>#route-map con permit 10
>>#match interface loopback0
>>#
>>!
>>#route-map con permit 20
>>!
>>
>>
>>These are the four I can think of by heart at this time, there could be
>>other ways of making it to work depending on the restrictions in place.
>>
>>I have not had the time to lab these yet, but any of the above options
>>should work.
>>
>>HTH
>>Godwill Oletu
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jens Petter Eikeland" <jenseike@start.no>
>>To: "'Godswill Oletu'" <oletu@inbox.lv>; <zero5291@gmail.com>
>>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com>
>>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:26 PM
>>Subject: SV: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>
>>
>>No problem... I am cool. What you are telling below did not make much
>>sense
>>to me. I really do not understand what you are trying to say here. Try
>>be a
>>little more structured and not jump back and forth
>>
>>Jens Petter Eikeland
>>
>>-----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>Fra: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] Pe vegne av
>>Godswill Oletu
>>Sendt: 13. september 2005 00:25
>>Til: Jens Petter Eikeland; zero5291@gmail.com
>>Kopi: ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
>>Emne: Re: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>
>>take it easy.....life is not that hard.....
>>
>>try read my last post again at a latter time, when u would have cool
>>off.
>>the original post did not include "without network command", it sounded
>>more
>>
>>like someone wanting to know 'why' and a way to bypass the problem. I
>>was
>>just trying to help, so take a deep breath and relax, we are all here to
>>learn and not to throw punches....
>>
>>read this again from my last post:
>>
>>
>>
>>>'e0' was just a connected route (represented by 'C' in the routing
>>>
>>>
>>table)
>>
>>
>>>and not an 'eigrp 1' route on R2, hence it was filtered out by the
>>>'redistribute connected .....route-map...' statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Let me know if you agree or disagree with that and why?
>>
>>If the above statement is correct, then any route in the 'eigrp 1'
>>routing
>>table will be redistributed regardless of the route-map permitting the
>>connected interface 'lo0'. If one can get that particular route or some
>>fashion of it into the routing table with the "C", then 'eigrp 1' will
>>redistribute it regardless of what is in the 'redistribute
>>connected.....'
>>statement
>>
>>We seems to be out of luck, because the route
'192.168.1.0<http://192.168.1.0 <http://192.168.1.0> >'
>>is a
>>connected
>>route "C" on R2, with an admin distance of 0 (It will be the best route
>>no
>>matter what is done). The best distance one can achieve via
>>redistibution or
>>
>>by using the distance command is the value of "1". This knowledge is
>>fundanmental in understanding what really took place and how to fix it.
>>
>>Another method is:
>>to summarize the network, ie ip address of 'e0' to a different boundary:
>>
>>eg
>>
>>#interface loopback0
>>#ip address 10.1.1.1 <http://10.1.1.1 <http://10.1.1.1> > 255.0.0.0
<http://255.0.0.0 <http://255.0.0.0> >
>>!
>>#interface ethernet0
>>#ip address 192.168.1.1 <http://192.168.1.1 <http://192.168.1.1> >
255.255.255.0<http://255.255.255.0 <http://255.255.255.0> >
>>#ip summary-address eigrp 1 192.168.0.0 <http://192.168.0.0
<http://192.168.0.0> > 255.255.0.0<http://255.255.0.0 <http://255.255.0.0> >
>>!
>>#router eigrp 1
>>#network 192.168.1.0 <http://192.168.1.0 <http://192.168.1.0> >
>>#
>>!
>>#interface serial0
>>#ip address 172.16.1.1 <http://172.16.1.1 <http://172.16.1.1> >
255.255.0.0<http://255.255.0.0 <http://255.255.0.0> >
>>!
>>#router ospf 1
>>#redistribute eigrp 1
>>#redistribute connected subnets route-map filter-connected
>>#network 172.16.0.0 <http://172.16.0.0 <http://172.16.0.0> > 0.0.255.255
<http://0.0.255.255 <http://0.0.255.255> >area 0
>>!
>>#route-map filter-connected permit 10
>>#match interface loopback0
>>#
>>
>>With this I was still able to achieve reachabilty without advertising
>>'e0'
>>network into ospf. I rely on 'redistribute eigrp 1' to pass the route
>>accross to R1.
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Jens Petter Eikeland" <jenseike@start.no>
>>To: "'Godswill Oletu'" <oletu@inbox.lv>; <zero5291@gmail.com>
>>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com>
>>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:15 PM
>>Subject: SV: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The task was to redistribute the loopback of router 2 without using
>>>network
>>>command. Then you need to use a red connected with a route map of
>>>
>>>
>>lopback.
>>
>>
>>>When you do this the route disapers (eigrp's e0)... why don't you test
>>>
>>>
>>it
>>
>>
>>>in
>>>a live rack. As you also can see from the ordernary question about
>>>
>>>
>>this
>>
>>
>>>that
>>>this is exactly what is happening... I don't think you can come here
>>>
>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>say
>>>that somebody are wrong if you don't test it and prove yourselfe. This
>>>
>>>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>a
>>>vel documented and I first learned it at a bootcamp with brian and
>>>
>>>
>>brian
>>
>>
>>>at
>>>internetworkexpert.
>>>
>>>Jens Petter Eikeland
>>>
>>>-----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>>Fra: Godswill Oletu [mailto:oletu@inbox.lv <mailto:oletu@inbox.lv> ]
>>>Sendt: 12. september 2005 22:07
>>>Til: Jens Petter Eikeland; zero5291@gmail.com
>>>Kopi: ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
>>>Emne: Re: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>>
>>>Did you try...
>>>
>>>#router ospf 1
>>>#network <e0 network> <wildcard mask> area <ur appropriate area #>
>>>
>>>I understood what you were saying, but my point is, if a network is
>>>present
>>>in 'eigrp 1' table, 'redistribute eigrp 1' will redistribute it
>>>
>>>
>>regardless
>>
>>
>>>of the route-map connected filter.
>>>
>>>'e0' was just a connected route (represented by 'C' in the routing
>>>
>>>
>>table)
>>
>>
>>>and not an 'eigrp 1' route on R2, hence it was filtered out by the
>>>'redistribute connected .....route-map...' statement.
>>>
>>>HTH
>>>Godswill Oletu
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Jens Petter Eikeland" <jenseike@start.no>
>>>To: "'Godswill Oletu'" <oletu@inbox.lv>; <zero5291@gmail.com>
>>>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com>
>>>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:02 PM
>>>Subject: SV: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I will try explain this again, because I know that I am right after I
>>>>
>>>>
>>have
>>
>>
>>>>tested this out. Me too thought this sounded far out when I first
>>>>
>>>>
>>learn
>>
>>
>>>>about it, and needed to see it with my own eyes before I belived it,
>>>>
>>>>
>>but
>>
>>
>>>>after tested this in the rack many times I know this is how it works,
>>>>
>>>>
>>so
>>
>>
>>>>please test it your selfe man...
>>>>
>>>>First of, e0 of r2 is in this scenario is not redistributed in to
>>>>
>>>>
>>eigrp,
>>
>>
>>>>but
>>>>is put in to eigrp with the network command. The hidden command that
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>router do when you enter any network in to the routin prosess with
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>network command is doing a hidden redistributed connected withs
>>>>
>>>>
>>include
>>
>>
>>>>all
>>>>the local networks that you entered in with the network command. This
>>>>
>>>>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>>how
>>>>it works :
>>>>
>>>>Router eigrp 1
>>>>Network (e0)
>>>>
>>>>When you enter this command the router put this networks in to the
>>>>routing
>>>>process by entering :
>>>>
>>>>Router eigrp 1
>>>>Redistribute connected route-map connected-local routes
>>>>Route-map connected-local-routes
>>>>
>>>>The router will never show this command in the config, but this is
>>>>
>>>>
>>what
>>
>>
>>>>the
>>>>router actually do.
>>>>
>>>>So
>>>>
>>>>When you then do a redistribute connected in to the other routing
>>>>
>>>>
>>process
>>
>>
>>>>(ospf here) with the command :
>>>>
>>>>Interface loopbac 0
>>>>Ip address xx.xx.xx.xx
>>>>
>>>>Router ospf 1
>>>>Redistribute eigrp 1 subnets
>>>>Redistribute connected subnets route-map loopback
>>>>Route-map connected permit 10
>>>>Match interface lo0
>>>>
>>>>When you do this, you will breake the redistribute connected that the
>>>>router
>>>>did for entering e0 in to the routing table(routing process of r2).
>>>>
>>>>
>>The
>>
>>
>>>>way
>>>>to fix this is to include this router in to this redistributing
>>>>
>>>>
>>process
>>
>>
>>>>like
>>>>this :
>>>>
>>>>Route-map loopbac
>>>>Match interface lo0 e0 (eigrp's e0 network)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I suggest you lab this up before you say that I am wrong, because
>>>>
>>>>
>>this is
>>
>>
>>>>how the routing process works in a cisco router when you do this kind
>>>>
>>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>>redistributing on the router. This goes only for when you do this.
>>>>
>>>>Jens P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>>>Fra: Godswill Oletu [mailto:oletu@inbox.lv <mailto:oletu@inbox.lv> ]
>>>>Sendt: 12. september 2005 18:42
>>>>Til: Jens Petter Eikeland; zero5291@gmail.com
>>>>Kopi: ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
>>>>Emne: Re: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>>>
>>>>Ali,
>>>>
>>>>If you can, post configs from R1 & R2.
>>>>
>>>>Just redistributing connected with a route-map will not make 'e0' or
>>>>other
>>>>routes redistributed from eigrp to disappear from your routing table
>>>>
>>>>
>>or
>>
>>
>>>>the
>>>>routing table of R1. R2 will treat each statement one after the other
>>>>
>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>a top to bottom fashion (redistribution will be treated first and
>>>>
>>>>
>>your
>>
>>
>>>>network statements will be rearranged and treated one after the other
>>>>after
>>>>the redistribute command).
>>>>
>>>>If the network of e0 is not been advertised by ospf separately (ie
>>>>
>>>>
>>you
>>
>>
>>>>are
>>>>not using 'network <e0 network> area <#>' under your ospf process or
>>>>
>>>>
>>any
>>
>>
>>>>command that will advertise it> and it is only been advertised under
>>>>
>>>>
>>your
>>
>>
>>>>eigrp process and u are relying on the 'redistribute' command to send
>>>>
>>>>
>>it
>>
>>
>>>>to
>>>>ospf, make sure you have 'redistribute eigrp <as#>.....' under your
>>>>
>>>>
>>ospf
>>
>>
>>>>process with the 'redistribute connected...' . Redistribute eigrp
>>>>
>>>>
>><as#>
>>
>>
>>>>will
>>>>
>>>>take care of all routes from eigrp including your 'e0' and the
>>>>'redistribute
>>>>
>>>>connected route-map' will filter your connected networks by the
>>>>
>>>>
>>route-map
>>
>>
>>>>and only advertise the ones that passed the test.
>>>>
>>>>Posting your configs will sort things out and put you in the right
>>>>track.....
>>>>
>>>>HTH
>>>>Godswill Oletu
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Jens Petter Eikeland" <jenseike@start.no>
>>>>To: <zero5291@gmail.com>
>>>>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com>
>>>>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:50 AM
>>>>Subject: SV: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you mean. This is how the router is behaving. Please lab it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>up
>>
>>
>>>>>yourselfe. I have done it several times, and
>>>>>this happens every time
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jens Petter Eikeland
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_____
>>>>>
>>>>>Fra: Ali.Huang [mailto:zero5291@gmail.com <mailto:zero5291@gmail.com> ]
>>>>>Sendt: 12. september 2005 17:48
>>>>>Til: Jens Petter Eikeland
>>>>>Kopi: ccielab@groupstudy.com; kumara.shunmugam@wipro.com
>>>>>Emne: Re: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks your replies.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if it is a default behavior,I doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>>If not redistribute connected ,I checked the routing table,and found
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>>metric of e0 doesn't like a connected network at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I feel doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 9/12/05, Jens Petter Eikeland <jenseike@start.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok, I have done some reachearc and found what is happening to the
>>>>>router -
>>>>>
>>>>>When you do redistribution here between eigrp and ospf (or any
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>other
>>
>>
>>>>>routing protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>Router eigrp 1
>>>>>Network ( e0 )
>>>>>Redistribute ospf 1
>>>>>
>>>>>(the router will by default run this command)
>>>>>Redistribute connected subnets route-map conn
>>>>>
>>>>>Route-map default permit 10
>>>>>Match interface e0
>>>>>
>>>>>(This is what the router do when you add a network command
>>>>>to the routing process to add the nets in to the routing table
>>>>>automaticly)
>>>>>
>>>>>When you do a redistributed conected on the same router with a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>match
>>
>>
>>>>>int
>>>>>Lo0
>>>>>
>>>>>Router ospf 1
>>>>>Redistribute connected subnet route-map conn
>>>>>
>>>>>Route-map conn
>>>>>Match int lo0
>>>>>
>>>>>When you do this you will loose the Ethernet interface that you
>>>>>advertised
>>>>>in to eigrp
>>>>>from the routing table and you will breake the redistribution
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>process
>>
>>
>>>>>that
>>>>>eigrp did on its connected interfaces. This is a default behaviour
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>>>cisco
>>>>>routers.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can solve this by doing in ospf :
>>>>>
>>>>>Redistributed connected permit 10 route-map conn
>>>>>
>>>>>Route-map conn
>>>>>Match interface e0
>>>>>
>>>>>In addition to the connected loopback you redistributed in earlier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hope this explain this for you. This is a behaivur that the router
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>has,
>>
>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>this is something you need to think of when you do redistribution on
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>>>border router
>>>>>
>>>>>Jens P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>>>>Fra: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] Pe vegne
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>av
>>
>>
>>>>>Ali.Huang
>>>>>Sendt: 12. september 2005 13:35
>>>>>Til: Cisco certification
>>>>>Emne: redistribution between eigrp and ospf
>>>>>
>>>>>hi,group,
>>>>>Topo:R1---ospf-----(s0)R2(e0)---eigrp
>>>>>I do bi-direction redistribution.work well.and the subnet of e0 was
>>>>>diaplayed in R1 routing table.But when I want to redistribute
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>loopback0
>>
>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>R2 into ospf domain,use the following clauses;
>>>>>route-map CON permit 10
>>>>>match interface Loopback0
>>>>>router ospf 10
>>>>>redistribute connected metric-type 1 metric 100 subnets route-map
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>CON
>>
>>
>>>>>The subnet of e0 disappeares from R1 routing table,and the loopback0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>>>R2
>>>>>OK.If removes the redistribute connected,OK.it come back.who can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>tell me
>>
>>
>>>>>why?
>>>>>
>>>>>THX.
>>>>>Ali.huang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>>>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
<http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>THX.
>>>>>Ali.huang
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>>>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
<http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
<http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
<http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:16 GMT-3