From: Filyurin, Yan (yan.filyurin@eds.com)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2007 - 16:02:38 ART
Hello Group Study. I have a possible set of questions regarding route
redistribution. Let's say I have 4 routers A, B, C and D, all
interconnected and running the same routing protocol. For example OSPF.
Routers A and B connect to the same RIP domain and routers C and D
connect to say EIGRP domain. Mutual redistribution needs to be done
between all IGP protocols.
The first task that needs to be done is that since there are multiple
redistribution points, all I have to do is through the use of route tags
control so that routes from one routing protocol don't redistributed
back into it. That is pretty straightforward.
What becomes interesting is when it is a good idea to use distance
command. For example if routers A and B are acting as redistribution
points into RIP and RIP has higher distance than OSPF, then router B or
router A will have RIP routes from RIP domain and OSPF E1 or E2 routes
that got redistributed. So it would see logical to set distance of RIP
to be 109 for example. And if I do that suddenly OSPF routes from C and
D not to mention routes that came from EIGRP domain have a similar
problem. On A an B they become preferred through RIP. Similar problems
could exist with EIGRP, but at least with EIGRP it is easier since it
does differentiate between external and internal
Since RIPv2 does not distinguish between internal and external routes, I
guess I could do something, assuming I can't summarize and need complete
redundancy. I can set distance command to selectively choose which
routes get what distance and from what sources, but that takes access
lists and I have to do it both redistribution point routers. Is there
anything else I can do to make the whole thing easier and does any of
this sound right?
Also is it always a good idea when doing mutual redistribution to
redistribute connected routes into all IGP protocols, that haven't been
redistributed previously or were not part of the network statement?
Yan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 08 2007 - 23:46:57 ART