From: Magmax (magmax@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Mon May 01 2006 - 23:00:13 ART
Now I get it
R2 will never redistribute subnet 204.12.1.0/24 into OSPF because subnet is
not in rip database (reason directly connected interface) and it will never
happen
Second option. What you did redistribute connected (this is fine)
Third option. next-hop self command on R2 or R6
Fourth option. Static route on other routers to tell them about 24.x.x.x/24
subnet
_____
From: Anderson Mota Alves [mailto:mota_anderson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:47 AM
To: magmax@bigpond.net.au; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Lab 7 - IEWB (Redistribution) task 4.8 and 4.9
We are doing mutual redistribution but from the solution 4.8 we had to
advertise the loopback of the routers using the command:
router ospf 1
redistribute connected subnets route-map CONNECTED_TO_OSPF
match interface loopback 0
and the point is that R2 was not receiving the network 204.12.1.0/24 from R6
since it's a directly connected route so since R2 is the point which ends
the RIP and starts OSPF how to tell to R1 (which is running OSPF) about the
network 204.12.1.0/24 ?
The only way I found was to include the interface fa0/0 (204.12.1.2) in the
match interface loopback fa0/0, after that R1 start receiving the routes and
BGP routes worked.
_____
From: "Magmax" <magmax@bigpond.net.au>
To: "'Anderson Mota Alves'"
<mota_anderson@hotmail.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: Lab 7 - IEWB (Redistribution) task 4.8 and 4.9
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:39:04 +1000
>In the lab diagram R2, R6, BB1, BB3 are running RIP v2 and there is OSPF
>area 2 between R1 and R2
>
>I believe in IGP section we are doing mutual redistribution between RIP and
>OSPF on R2 which should make 204.12.1.0/24 subnet reachable from others
>routers
>
>
>Ubaid
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>Anderson Mota Alves
>Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:18 AM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Lab 7 - IEWB (Redistribution) task 4.8 and 4.9
>
>Hi Brians, I don't know if I'm wrong on this but I was having problems in
>BGP in this lab because R1 was not seeing the bgp routes as best from R2
>when I was issuing "show ip bgp" after some time I was able to figure it
>out that the R2 was sending the bgp routes to R1 (iBGP) with a next-hop
>of R6 (204.12.1.6) and then I realized that R1 didn't have the route of
>204.12.1.0/24 installed on his route table so I had to go to R2 and
>change one requirement from 4.8 (change the route-map CONNECTED_TO_OSPF
>permit 10 matching not only the loopback but also the interface fa0/0 of
>R2 (which is 204.12.1.2) only after this R1 start receiving the
>204.12.1.0 routes from R2 and the BGP worked just fine. Please let me
>know if I'm right or if I may be missing something here. Thanks,Andy
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:20 ART