From: tonynguyenchi (tonynguyenchi.ccie@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 20 2006 - 05:01:45 ART
Hi,
I have the same problem with this redistribution, can not understand why the
solution only redistributes vlan162 when redistribute from EIGRP to OSPF on
R3; and why do we need to summary for RIP for VLAN162 and 150.1.0.0 on R4.
Have you been clear on this matter. Could you please share?
Thanks and best regards,
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vazquez, Jorge" <Jorge.Vazquez@acs-inc.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:39 PM
Subject: RE: Redistribution IEWB Lab5 Q4.8
> Curt,
>
> I also think the reason why the summary routes are injected into RIP on R4
> is because they want to advertise to the RIP Domain the routes that are
> not
> advertised on OSPF and that are not advertised by the OSPF domain. But
> still, cannot figure out why they implement the eigrp to ospf
> redistribution
> on R3.
>
> Thank you
>
> Jorge Vazquez
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curt Gregg (cugregg) [mailto:cugregg@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:07 PM
> To: Vazquez, Jorge; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Redistribution IEWB Lab5 Q4.8
>
>
> I have also been tooling around with the same thoughts.
>
> R4
> The only thought I have to R4 is that the 162.1.0.024 is to include the
> 162.1.45.0/24 network which I would have already taken care of in
> Section 4.6, I question this below.
>
> The 150.1.0.0/20 is odd as 150.1.4.4 is included in the OSPF area 0 and
> 150.1.5.5 is via R5 OSPF area 0 and R4 via static if R5's frame link is
> down. ??
>
> R3
> Again not sure why as R3 is originating a default route that is
> including everything behind it. R3 then just needs to redistribute OSPF
> routes into EIGRP.
>
>
> Section 4.6. With the static routes on R4 to R5's networks, 162.1.55.5
> $ 162.1.5.5 have full reach ability but not 162.1.45.5, which can not be
> reached by routers other than R4.
>
> My thoughts that were to fulfill the questions 45.5 has to be reachable
> also and would need to be redistributed to meet 4.6 goals. Solution in
> 4.6, Redistributed connected with route-map to include only
> 162.1.45.0/24???
>
> I know there are a lot of different ways to handle different scenarios
> but questions is which one is the best solution. I would have thought
> the completing 4.6 to include 162.1.45.0/24 would have best answered
> that section (R5 full connectivity with Frame link down) and not have
> been needed to be re-addressed in section 4.8 by the summary address.
>
> My thoughts,
>
> Curt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Vazquez, Jorge
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:25 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Redistribution IEWB Lab5 Q4.8
>
> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> I have a question about the Internetwork Expert Workbook
>
> Lab 5, Question 4.8 Redistribution
>
>
>
> I don't understand why the following code lines are in the answer:
>
>
>
> R4
>
> Interface e0/0
>
> Ip summary-address rip 162.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
>
> Ip summary-address rip 150.1.0.0 255.255.240.0
>
>
>
> My opinion: There is connectivity even if those lines are not included
>
>
>
>
>
> R3
>
> Router ospf 1
>
> Redistribute eigrp 200 subnets route-map eigrp_to_ospf
>
>
>
> My opinion: This protocol redistribution is not necessary due there is a
> default line included that allows to reach eigrp and rip from the ospf
> network.
>
>
>
> Thanks, please advice because it has taking me a lot of time to discover
> the reason. :-)
>
>
>
> Jorge Vazquez
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:48 ART