From: Serhat Aslan (serhatworks@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 12 2007 - 17:37:00 ART
Hi Toh,
add this statement :)
route-map REDISTCON permit 20
match interface lo0
Redistribution can be done only when a route is on the routing table, at
the routing table 192.168.x.x/32 is show as connected not ospf so you have
to include it as in the connected statements.
Serhat Aslan
On 8/12/07, Toh Soon, Lim <tohsoon28@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm stuck with a problem which I'd like to seek clarification from the
> group.
>
> R2 (S0/0/0.24 p2p)----------frame relay pvc (subnet
> 172.30.24.0/24)----------(S0/0.42 p2p) R4
>
> RIPv2 is run across the FR link between R2 and R4. The other interfaces of
> R2 are in multiple OSPF areas; their IP addresses are as follows:
>
> L0 : 192.168.2.2/32 - Area 1
> F0/0 : 172.30.12.2/26 - Area 12
> S0/0/0.100 : 172.30.100.2/29 - Area 0
>
> There's one connected interface on R2 (S0/0/1 - 172.30.25/0/24) not
> covered
> by OSPF or RIP. It is to be redistributed into OSPF and RIP.
>
> I practise being very specific with what connected routes to redistribute.
> Hence, my R2 config is as follows:
>
> !
> router rip
> version 2
> redistribute connected metric 5 route-map REDISTCON
> redistribute ospf 1 metric 5 match internal external 1 external 2
> passive-interface default
> no passive-interface Serial0/0/0.24
> network 172.30.0.0
> no auto-summary
> !
> route-map REDISTCON permit 10
> match interface Serial0/0/1
> !
>
> The issue with the above config is, the route 192.168.2.2/32 (Loopback0)
> does not appear on R4. At first look, I expected it (as an OSPF route) to
> be
> redistributed into RIP but it wasn't. Doing "debug ip rip" on R2 shows R2
> not sending 192.168.2.2/32 out its FR interface.
>
> My hypothesis is, since I'm doing redistribute connected and ospf into RIP
> at the same time, R2 treats its Lo0 interface as a connected network
> rather
> than an OSPF network. Therefore it is denied by the route-map in the
> "redistribute connected" command. Arguing along the same line, the other
> two
> routes (172.30.12.2/26 & 172.30.100.2/29) should have been denied too but
> they appeared on R4 ! Their metric is 1, meaning they are advertised by
> RIP
> internally (the "network 172.30.0.0" statement covers them).
>
> My workaround is to redistribute connected without the route-map. Anyone
> please advise me a better way to accomplish this task.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> B.Rgds,
> Lim TS
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:10 ART