From: Eli Kosharovsky (eli_kosh@netvision.net.il)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2007 - 16:31:42 ART
You can set a distanece based on the advertising router.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Filyurin, Yan
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:03 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Multiple route redistribution points
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