From: Montiean (noktes@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Dec 31 2005 - 11:35:07 GMT-3
Ensure there's no loop once you done your lab. You will be save ;)
Montiean
----- Original Message -----
From: <InderpalS@mindscapeit.com>
To: <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>; <nenad.pudar@gmail.com>
Cc: <Ajaz.Nawaz@bskyb.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:44 AM
Subject: RE: mutual redistribution
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> 12/31/2005 1:49:49 PM
>
> Disclaimer
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary
> information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:52 GMT-3