From: InderpalS@mindscapeit.com
Date: Sat Dec 31 2005 - 06:44:27 GMT-3
Do we need to ensure there are no routing loops if lab is not specifically
asking for it?
Inder
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Dennis [mailto:bdennis@internetworkexpert.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 9:49 AM
To: nenad pudar
Cc: Nawaz, Ajaz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: mutual redistribution
Unless the lab specifically asks for redundancy or states to not have
suboptimal routing, then just do not about those issues. Many people spend
unnecessary time on solving redundancy and/or suboptimal routing issues when
the proctors are not going to even check for them.
The only time you normally would even consider redundancy without the lab
specifically asking for it, is when you have an interface backing up another
interface (i.e. ISDN).
HTH,
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
________________________________
From: nenad pudar [mailto:nenad.pudar@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 8:28 PM
To: Brian Dennis
Cc: Nawaz, Ajaz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: mutual redistribution
Hi Brian
Actually I have the question related to this
In the Internetork book and many other documents for this scenario and
similar ones (where the other routing protocol is RIP or EIGRP with existing
external routes) preferred solution seems to be filtering using tags.
However this doe not provide the redundancy .
My question is if redundancy was not mentioned anywhere in lab requirements
is it safe do filtering (match easier) and not to provide any redundancy ?
thanks
Nenad
On 12/30/05, Brian Dennis <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
If you know what problem could occur with this topology, if there even is
one to begin with, you will quickly be able to determine the appropriate
solution. I'll give you two hints on how you can answer your own question:
1) EIGRP has a higher administrative distance for external routes by default
for a reason. What is that reason?
2) If there are not any external EIGRP routes in EIGRP before redistribution
is done between EIGRP and OSPF, you will not need to do anything (tags, AD,
distribute-list, etc). If you do have external EIGRP routes before doing
redistribution or switched EIGRP with RIP, you
would then have an issue to resolve.
Remember that it's just as important to understand why you are doing a
certain configuration as much as it is to know how to do the configuration
;-)
HTH,
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto: nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] On Behalf Of Nawaz, Ajaz
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 5:40 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: mutual redistribution
When mutually redistributing between eigrp and ospf at two separate points
in the network, what the cleanest & simplest way for preventing imminent
route feedback?,
Having read the archives there's mixed opinions between the use of AD and
Tags
Many thanks
Ajaz Nawaz
-----------------------------------------
Information in this email may be privileged, confidential and is intended
exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official
policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in
error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your
system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or
disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:52 GMT-3