From: Schulz, Dave (DSchulz@dpsciences.com)
Date: Tue Jan 10 2006 - 22:39:51 GMT-3
I was intending to use the major networks here, since I was just experimenting
with the different ways to do redistribution through route-maps. The 40
network matches the first statement in the eigrp 100 process. I believe
access-list 1 does match the network....there is a 4.4.4.4 network and the
40.40.40.40 network. On the default metric, I just put that in as starting
point, since I wanted to see how and when the route-map metrics and the
redistribute line metric statements would take precedence. there is some
really interesting stuff wehn you start changing things!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell, TJ
To: Schulz, Dave; Cisco certification
Sent: 1/10/2006 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: Redistribution issue - and applying different metrics
Dave --
From first glance you are advertising the major networks rather than the
subnets in EIGRP (not a big deal)
Second off access-list 1 doesn't match the interface for the 40.x
network.
What it looks like to me is that everything is matching your last permit
any statement causing the metric that you see. This goes to tell me that
there is something wrong with those statements or matches.
You also have a default metric of 1 configured under RIP. Everything
you have matches either an ACL or Route-Map so what is the reason for
that?
I have a similar configuration in my lab, so let me give it a try and
see what happens.
T.J. Mitchell
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Schulz, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:16 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Redistribution issue - and applying different metrics
I have been working on some redistribution in the lab with RIP and
EIGRP. Here is the scenario....
R1 to R4 running RIP. There is link going to a switch that is running
EIGRP. I want to redistribute eigrp into rip and also have connected
routes (loopbacks) redistributed into rip. Here is where it gets a bit
strange. I understand the issues where we have a protocol redistributed
into another protocol and also have connected routes being
redistributed.....however, if I would want to apply different metrics to
different routes, without using an offset-list. I am not sure that this
is possible, but would think that it would using the following
route-map......However, on R1....all the metrics show up as a metric of
4. Strange? Any thoughts?
Here is the route table on R1....
R1#sh ip rou
R 4.0.0.0/8 [120/4] via 172.16.14.4, 00:00:18, Serial0/0.14
172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets
C 172.16.14.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0.14
C 172.16.123.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0.123
R 40.0.0.0/8 [120/4] via 172.16.14.4, 00:00:18, Serial0/0.14
R 41.0.0.0/8 [120/4] via 172.16.14.4, 00:00:18, Serial0/0.14
R4 config is the key here......
!
interface Loopback0
ip address 4.4.4.4 255.255.255.0
!
interface Loopback1
ip address 40.40.40.40 255.255.255.0
!
interface Ethernet0
ip address 41.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface Serial0
ip address 172.16.14.4 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay map ip 172.16.14.1 401 broadcast
frame-relay map ip 172.16.14.4 401
no frame-relay inverse-arp
frame-relay lmi-type ansi
!
!
router eigrp 100
network 40.0.0.0
network 41.0.0.0
no auto-summary
!
router rip
redistribute connected route-map LOOP
redistribute eigrp 100 metric 9
passive-interface default
network 172.16.0.0
neighbor 172.16.14.1
default-metric 1
no auto-summary
!
!
access-list 1 permit 40.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 2 permit 41.1.1.0 0.0.0.255
!
route-map LOOP permit 10
match interface Loopback0
set metric 4
!
route-map LOOP permit 15
match ip address 1
set metric 6
!
route-map LOOP permit 17
match ip address 2
set metric 2
!
route-map LOOP permit 20
!
!
Dave Schulz
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <mailto:dschulz@dpsciences.com >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 07:45:48 GMT-3