From: peter morgan (cciemaha@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2007 - 19:31:56 ART
Hi Agaian,
My understanding is not correct.
If you want to bounce interfaces
for any other config then the sub optimal routing issue may come into action.
If you are configuring Mutual Redistribution then it is a really good idea to
take precations for that.
Peter
----- Original Message ----
From: peter
morgan <cciemaha@yahoo.com>
To: NET HE <he_net@hotmail.com>
Cc:
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:03:20 AM
Subject: Re:
suboptimal routes in routing table
Hi,
I think sub optimal routing
avoidance will not be an issue till one of
your redistribution
connections/points failure. If any of your physical liks
or eqiupment faliure
occur then you have to notify it to your procter. So I
don't think that sub
optiomal avoidance configurations require in the exam. I
think end to end IGP
connectivity will be enough there.
HTH,
Peter
-----
Original Message ----
From: NET HE <he_net@hotmail.com>
To:
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Tuesday,
August 21, 2007 1:41:22 AM
Subject:
suboptimal routes in routing table
Hi,
there
I am wondering if I need to
pay attention to suboptimal routes at CCIE
lab
or not if there is nowhere
mentioning to avoid suboptimal routes.
For
example, there are 2 routers
working as border routers between OSPF and
EIGRP
domains. OSPF and EIGRP are
mutually redistributed. And there are some
external routes from somewhere
else (not from OSPF) in EIGRP domain. The
border routers will receive those
external routes from OSPF and EIGRP
domain.
Since external EIGRP routes' AD
is 170, and OSPF routes' AD is 110,
those
routes coming from OSPF, which are
redistributed from EIGRP will enter
routing table.
How do I handle it? Do I
have to consider bandwidth along the
path?
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Net (Xin)
He
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:12 ART