From: Filyurin, Yan (yan.filyurin@eds.com)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2007 - 17:31:33 ART
Let me read it and thank you, but again in this case if I make OSPF
external routes less preferable than RIP routes, all of a sudden the
router will be confused about reaching those routes (and I am talking
about those that came from C and D and EIGRP world). I actually had to
experience something like that in the real world and it was not fun!
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Sinclair [mailto:bob@bobsinclair.net]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:53 PM
To: Filyurin, Yan
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Multiple route redistribution points
Filyurin, Yan wrote:
> What becomes interesting is when it is a good idea to use distance
> command.
It is a good idea to use the distance command to make sure that native
prefixes are routed by the native protocol. As you suggest, mutual
redistribution at two or more points between OSPF and RIP is likely to
violate this maxim. For a good discussion, please see the paper "A
Scenario with Mutual Redistribution Points" on the NMC web site under
READiT, Public PDFs.
As a scalable solution, you could use <distance ospf external 121> to
make sure RIP internal are preferred over OSPF external routes.
-- HTH,Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427 www.netmasterclass.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 08 2007 - 23:46:57 ART