From: Shamin (ccie.xpert@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 15 2006 - 06:50:46 ART
Hi Magmax,
When you say that 204.12.1.0/24 is not present in the RIP database, do you
mean that it does not show in the output of "sh ip rip database" or is it
something else. I checked the output of "Sh ip rip database" and found that
204.12.1.0/24 is showing in the database as directly connected. Is my
understanding wrong about RIP database?
regards
shamin
On 5/2/06, Magmax <magmax@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 - 06:33:21 ART