From: slevin kremera (slevin.kremera@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2007 - 23:17:35 ART
OSPF any has a distance of 110 which is less than rip-120 and moreover RIP
does not have any concept of external rip routes like OSPF/EIGRP have..
this is what i think..well what do the xperts say??
On 8/15/07, NITIN NITIN <ccie_study_123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
> even ME 2 haave this doubt ..... Please clarify experts ..
>
> Thanks and regard
>
>
>
> Note: forwarded message attached.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web
> links.
> X-Apparently-To: ccie_study_123@yahoo.com via 69.147.75.99; Tue, 14 Aug
> 2007 11:10:33 -0700
> X-YahooFilteredBulk: 207.44.210.9
> X-Originating-IP: [207.44.210.9]
> Authentication-Results: mta149.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=groupstudy.com;
> domainkeys=fail (bad syntax)
> Received: from 207.44.210.9 (EHLO lists.groupstudy.com) (207.44.210.9)
> by mta149.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:09:55
> -0700
> Received: (from sympa@localhost) by lists.groupstudy.com
> (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) id l7EI8Xlo005339; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:08:33
> -0400
> Received: from groupstudy.com (www.groupstudy.com [209.51.144.7]) by
> lists.groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
> l7EHpVx4005007 for <ccielab@lists.groupstudy.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007
> 13:51:31 -0400
> Received: from groupstudy.com (groupstudy.com [127.0.0.1]) by
> groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7EHpcU0027239
> GroupStudy Mailer; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:51:38 -0400
> Received: (from listserver@localhost) by groupstudy.com
> (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l7EHpc02027235 for
> ccielabxhiddenx; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:51:38 -0400
> Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com
> [64.233.166.177]) by groupstudy.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with
> ESMTP id l7EHpbOC027205 GroupStudy Mailer; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:51:37
> -0400
> Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a25so3187756pyi for
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
>
> h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
>
> b=HxLb6aGuBFVsJba+JzEoGCDblqPKErXPLhOMtAvWhg+m5yV0DQdDzHjDl9N6dFRaPoyrNtO4SeRs1+12DNT5bSINVNG0fa2ax8Ai3EHEdjW5jVbelj4ErIW5bQ3XbvqapkAt8pEXyhaJf8d7TxMJI06uvoz7btBGyY+UvOGZhmI=
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
> h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
>
> b=lZxEOASNJPKNIl+g+Jq4CHmwtYNZ4uJiNp+N9tXVEp8ndPRefm1yKE5c2ObQ8puCVXC2JMko05nfYe4C0k94DYF8npKQHjZe7ZNdxvQS3w9dKKf2WIlnK/2Cr5D5lYX6Im0Y4FpyU2BKlffWdEnHDt/ZWWP/VdOvIyO56hSkNKE=
> Received: by 10.35.41.12 with SMTP id t12mr9937787pyj.1187113890124;
> Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: by 10.35.122.9 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:51:30 -0700
> (PDT)
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:51:30 +0800
> From: ccie1101 <ccie1101@gmail.com>
> To: "Cisco certification" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Redistribution between RIP and OSPF ....
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by GroupStudy
> X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain
> X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match [from ccie1101@gmail\.com] (2007/08/14
> 13:51:38)
> Sender: nobody@groupstudy.com
> Reply-To: ccie1101 <ccie1101@gmail.com>
> X-Loop: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> X-Sequence: 20059
> Errors-to: ccielab-owner@groupstudy.com
> Precedence: bulk
> X-no-archive: yes
> List-Id: <ccielab.groupstudy.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:sympa@groupstudy.com?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa@groupstudy.com?subject=subscribe%20ccielab>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa@groupstudy.com
> ?subject=unsubscribe%20ccielab>
> List-Post: <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> List-Owner: <mailto:ccielab-request@groupstudy.com>
>
> Hi GS,
> I am confused about redistribution between rip and ospf .... *1)*
> My
> question is that when we redistribute between RIP and OSPF, do we need to
> lower the AD to 109 so that ospf routes can be redistributed into rip or
> *Case
> 2* would work ? *2)* Under which scneario should we use the 'distance
> 109'
> command under the router rip mode ?
>
> *Case 1*:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> router rip
> distance 109
> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1
> !
> !
> router ospf 1
> redistribute rip subnets
> !
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Case 2*:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> router rip
> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1
> !
> router ospf 1
> redistribute rip subnets
> !
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you,
>
> Cheers,
>
> ccie1101.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:11 ART