From: Cisco Nuts (cisconuts@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 09:12:31 GMT-3
Yes,
B/w Eigrp and Ospf, using tags seems to be the way to go (Reading Jongsoo's
post explains this well)
B/w Ospf and Rip, either using the distance cmd. or distribute-lists seems
to do it.
I have seen examples of using the distance cmd. b/w Isis and Ospf - I am
sure others can add to this
since redistribution b/w Isis and other IGP's is different - the IP keyword
is critical when doing the redistribuition, even when redistributing static
into Isis)
Regards.
BTW: I guess this could be added to the earlier post of 3 ways of doing
things!!
<BLOCKQUOTE style='PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #A0C6E5
2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px'><font
style='FONT-SIZE:11px;FONT-FAMILY:tahoma,sans-serif'><hr color=#A0C6E5
size=1>
From: <i>"Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com></i><br>To:
<i>"kevin gannon "
<kevin@gannons.net>,<nobody@groupstudy.com>,"Cisco Nuts
" <cisconuts@hotmail.com></i><br>CC:
<i><ccielab@groupstudy.com></i><br>Subject: <i>RE: Rip
<--->Ospf Redistribution - using distribute-lists?</i><br>Date:
<i>Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:40:22 -0500</i><br>
<br>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<title>RE: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using
distribute-lists?</title>
</head>
<body>
<p><font size=2>This is a great subject, and one that I have been wrestling
with for awhile. I have used the ACLs for the distribution, but Kevin is
right...you have to maintain the ACLs. And, in a dynamic environment, this
may take a lot more admin than one would care to admit. I have found that
easiest way to do the redistribution is by using tags. I try to keep the
same tag number as the administrative distance to keep things straight. So,
if I am redistributing from OSPF to EIGRP....I use 110 as the tag and 90 in
the reverse direction. This seems to work well and is very easy to
implement and keep things straight. <br>
<br>
The one thing that I have learned with the redistribution is applying the
metrics. For EIGRP, you must apply the metrics either as a default in the
routing process or on the redistribute command line. You cannot solely do
this within the metric. Here is an example of a route-map for
redistribution that I have used:<br>
<br>
router eigrp 1<br>
redistribute ospf 1 route-map Ospf2Eigrp metric 100000 1 255 1 1500<br>
!<br>
router ospf 1<br>
redistribute eigrp 1 route-map Eigrp2Ospf metric 10 metric-type 1<br>
!<br>
route-map Eigrp2Ospf deny 10<br>
match tag 110<br>
!<br>
route-map Eigrp2Ospf permit 20<br>
set tag 90<br>
!<br>
route-map Ospf2Eigrp deny 10<br>
match tag 90<br>
!<br>
route-map Ospf2Eigrp permit 20<br>
set tag 110<br>
<br>
<br>
I am interested in any other great ways to accomplish this. You can't know
enough of the ways to do things.<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: nobody@groupstudy.com<br>
To: Cisco Nuts<br>
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com<br>
Sent: 11/5/2005 10:13 AM<br>
Subject: Re: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using
distribute-lists?<br>
<br>
Both using distance and or distribute lists is a valid way<br>
of stopping the loops. The advantage of the distance way<br>
where possible is you do not have to maintain ACLs so<br>
as new routes get advertised you do not have to update<br>
the ACL's.<br>
<br>
It is not always possible to use distance on its own.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Kevin<br>
<br>
On 11/5/05, Cisco Nuts <cisconuts@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>
> Hello: Is distribute-lists a good idea to use when doing 2-way<br>
> redistribution b/w Rip and Ospf or for that matter b/w any 2 IGP's
in<br>
> general? I have been reading a very good example of this on CCO but<br>
did<br>
> not run into this kind of solution (if I recall correctly) when
doing<br>
the<br>
> InetExp Labs. Even a sample lab from DoIt uses the distance 109 for<br>
RIP.<br>
> Permitting all RIP routes into Ospf via the distribute-list out rip<br>
under<br>
> Ospf while denying all RIP routes in via the distribute-list out
ospf<br>
> under Rip seems to nail it down. Any thoughts on this? Thanks!!<br>
><br>
><br>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:05 GMT-3