From: Schulz, Dave (DSchulz@dpsciences.com)
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 12:09:48 GMT-3
Thanks, Chula. I check this out.
Dave Schulz, CCDP, CCNP, CCSP
Project Manager / TAC Supervisor
Data Processing Sciences Corporation
10810 Kenwood Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Phone - (513) 791-7100 ext.7411
Fax - (513) 791-4676
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <mailto:dschulz@dpsciences.com%20>
________________________________
From: Chula Bandara [mailto:chula_bandara@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:09 AM
To: Schulz, Dave; nobody@groupstudy.com; kevin@gannons.net;
cisconuts@hotmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using distribute-lists?
We dont remove the previous tag but deny it.
you can use following to verify the distributed routes.
sh ip ospf database | i 999
sh ip eigrp top | i 999
________________________________
From: "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>
To: "Chula Bandara "
<chula_bandara@hotmail.com>,<nobody@groupstudy.com>,<kevin@gannons.net>,
<cisconuts@hotmail.com>
CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using
distribute-lists?
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 05:42:11 -0500
That is definitely a lot easier. I'll have to try that in the
lab. Won't this cause an issue with always redistributing at the same
point, since tags remain with the route? When we set a tag, are we also
removing a previous tag?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com
To: Schulz, Dave; kevin@gannons.net; nobody@groupstudy.com;
cisconuts@hotmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: 11/6/2005 9:35 PM
Subject: RE: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using
distribute-lists?
How about using one route-map and one tag instead of two.
router eigrp 1
redistribute ospf 1 route-map Ospf-Eigrp metric 100000 1 255 1
1500
!
router ospf 1
redistribute eigrp 1 route-map Ospf-Eigrp metric 10 metric-type
1
!
route-map Ospf-Eigrp deny 10
match tag 999
!
route-map Ospf-Eigrp permit 20
set tag 999
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>
Reply-To: "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>
To: "kevin gannon " <kevin@gannons.net>,
<nobody@groupstudy.com>,
"Cisco Nuts " <cisconuts@hotmail.com>
CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using
distribute-lists?
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:40:22 -0500
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.
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:
router eigrp 1
redistribute ospf 1 route-map Ospf2Eigrp metric 100000 1 255
1 1500
!
router ospf 1
redistribute eigrp 1 route-map Eigrp2Ospf metric 10
metric-type 1
!
route-map Eigrp2Ospf deny 10
match tag 110
!
route-map Eigrp2Ospf permit 20
set tag 90
!
route-map Ospf2Eigrp deny 10
match tag 90
!
route-map Ospf2Eigrp permit 20
set tag 110
I am interested in any other great ways to accomplish this.
You
can't know
enough of the ways to do things.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com
To: Cisco Nuts
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: 11/5/2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Rip <--->Ospf Redistribution - using
distribute-lists?
Both using distance and or distribute lists is a valid way
of stopping the loops. The advantage of the distance way
where possible is you do not have to maintain ACLs so
as new routes get advertised you do not have to update
the ACL's.
It is not always possible to use distance on its own.
Regards
Kevin
On 11/5/05, Cisco Nuts <cisconuts@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello: Is distribute-lists a good idea to use when doing
2-way
> redistribution b/w Rip and Ospf or for that matter b/w any 2
IGP's
in
> general? I have been reading a very good example of this on
CCO but
did
> not run into this kind of solution (if I recall correctly)
when
doing
the
> InetExp Labs. Even a sample lab from DoIt uses the distance
109 for
RIP.
> Permitting all RIP routes into Ospf via the distribute-list
out rip
under
> Ospf while denying all RIP routes in via the distribute-list
out
ospf
> under Rip seems to nail it down. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks!!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:05 GMT-3