From: Joel Amao (femmy79@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 07 2007 - 21:26:32 ART
route tagging works fine with RIP V2 see below.
Rack1R3#*Mar 1 00:13:03.859: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via
Serial1/3 (192.168.1.3)*Mar 1 00:13:03.863: RIP: build update entries*Mar 1
00:13:03.863: 1.1.1.1/32 via 0.0.0.0, metric 5, tag 999*Mar 1 00:13:03.867:
10.1.1.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 5, tag 999
Rack1R2#sh ip route 10.1.1.0Routing entry for 10.1.1.0/24 Known via "rip",
distance 120, metric 5 Tag 999 Redistributing via rip Last update from
192.168.1.3 on Serial1/1, 00:00:24 ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: *
192.168.1.3, from 192.168.1.3, 00:00:24 ago, via Serial1/1 Route metric
is 5, traffic share count is 1 Route tag 999
Joel Amao
CCIE#18128
> From: amsoares@netcabo.pt> To: bit.gossip@chello.nl; ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: is IGP tag transitive> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 22:59:31 +0100> >
Got the same behaviour:> > ++++++++++++++++++++++> R2#sh ip route 1.1.1.1>
Routing entry for 1.1.1.0/24> Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20> Tag
1, type extern 2, forward metric 10> Redistributing via rip> Advertised by rip
metric 2> Last update from 12.12.12.1 on Ethernet1/0, 00:02:04 ago> Routing
Descriptor Blocks:> * 12.12.12.1, from 1.1.1.1, 00:02:04 ago, via Ethernet1/0>
Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1> > R2#> ++++++++++++++++++++++>
R2#> *Mar 4 21:47:59.818: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via Ethernet1/1>
(23.23.23.2)> *Mar 4 21:47:59.818: RIP: build update entries> *Mar 4
21:47:59.818: 1.1.1.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 2, tag 0> *Mar 4 21:47:59.818:
2.2.2.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 2, tag 0> *Mar 4 21:47:59.818: 12.12.12.0/24
via 0.0.0.0, metric 2, tag 0> R2#> ++++++++++++++++++++++> R3#sh ip route
1.1.1.1> Routing entry for 1.1.1.0/24> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric
2> Redistributing via rip> Last update from 23.23.23.2 on Ethernet0/1,
00:00:18 ago> Routing Descriptor Blocks:> * 23.23.23.2, from 23.23.23.2,
00:00:18 ago, via Ethernet0/1> Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1> >
R3#> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > And as you saw, eigrp maintains the tag:> >
++++++++++++++++++++++ > R3#sh ip route 1.1.1.1> Routing entry for 1.1.1.0/24>
Known via "eigrp 23", distance 170, metric 2560025856> Tag 1, type external>
Redistributing via eigrp 23> Last update from 23.23.23.2 on Ethernet0/1,
00:00:03 ago> Routing Descriptor Blocks:> * 23.23.23.2, from 23.23.23.2,
00:00:03 ago, via Ethernet0/1> Route metric is 2560025856, traffic share count
is 1> Total delay is 1010 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 1 Kbit>
Reliability 1/255, minimum MTU 1 bytes> Loading 1/255, Hops 1> > R3#>
++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > Regards,> > Antonio Soares> CCIE #18473, CCNP,
CCIP> > -----Original Message-----> From: Bit Gossip
[mailto:bit.gossip@chello.nl] > Sent: sexta-feira, 7 de Setembro de 2007
21:52> To: Antonio Soares; ccielab@groupstudy.com> Subject: Re: is IGP tag
transitive> > I have done further more tests on> C3750 Software
(C3750-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.2(25)SEE> and> (C2600-JK9S-M), Version
12.3(21)> and> 7200 Software (C7200-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(15)T1>
and> C2600 Software (C2600-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(12)> > When
redistributing from OSPF into RIP the tag is lost and reset to 0 !!!> > The
simple test:> > R2(config-router)#do show run | b router> router eigrp 100>
redistribute ospf 1 metric 1 1 1 1 1> network 2.2.2.2 0.0.0.0> no
auto-summary> router ospf 1> log-adjacency-changes> network 1.1.1.2 0.0.0.0
area 0> router rip> version 2> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1> network 2.0.0.0>
> R2(config-router)#do show ip route 9.9.9.9> Routing entry for 9.9.9.9/32>
Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 20> Tag 9, type extern 2, forward
metric 64> Redistributing via eigrp 100, rip> Advertised by eigrp 100 metric 1
1 1 1 1> rip metric 1> Last update from 1.1.1.1 on Serial1/1, 00:03:57 ago>
Routing Descriptor Blocks:> * 1.1.1.1, from 9.9.9.9, 00:03:57 ago, via
Serial1/1> Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1> Route tag 9> >
R2(config-router)#> *Sep 7 22:48:30.963: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9
via Serial1/0 > (2.2.2.2)> *Sep 7 22:48:30.963: RIP: build update entries>
*Sep 7 22:48:30.963: 1.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0> *Sep 7
22:48:30.963: 9.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0> > > Instead the same
redistribution OSPF->EIGRP no problem.> This can have quite an impact when
relying on tagging in mutual > redistribution scenarios> > Please confirm, or
better tell me that I am wrong !!!> > Thanks,> bit.> > > ----- Original
Message ----- > From: "Bit Gossip" <bit.gossip@chello.nl>> To: "Antonio
Soares" <amsoares@netcabo.pt>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>> Sent: Friday,
September 07, 2007 9:50 PM> Subject: Re: is IGP tag transitive> > > >I am
afraid there is a major problem with tag here:> >> >> > interface Loopback1> >
ip address 9.9.9.9 255.255.255.255> > !> > interface Serial1/0> > ip address
1.1.1.1 255.0.0.0> > serial restart-delay 0> > !> > router rip> > version 2> >
redistribute connected route-map R> > network 1.0.0.0> > !> > route-map R
permit 10> > set tag 9> > !> > R1(config-router)#> > *Sep 7 21:48:42.227: RIP:
sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via Serial1/0 > > (1.1.1.1)> > *Sep 7
21:48:42.227: RIP: build update entries> > *Sep 7 21:48:42.227: 9.0.0.0/8 via
0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >
From: "Antonio Soares" <amsoares@netcabo.pt>> > To: "'Julio Carrasco'"
<julio.carrasco@ya.com>; "'Bit Gossip'" > > <bit.gossip@chello.nl>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:57 PM> >
Subject: RE: is IGP tag transitive> >> >> >> It does support. Maybe you are
hitting an IOS issue. Here my routers are> >> running 12.3.20:> >>> >>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> >> R2#sh ip route 1.1.1.1> >> Routing entry
for 1.1.1.1/32> >> Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 11, type intra
area> >> Redistributing via rip> >> Advertised by rip metric 2 route-map
ospf2rip> >> Last update from 12.12.12.1 on Ethernet1/0, 00:01:56 ago> >>
Routing Descriptor Blocks:> >> * 12.12.12.1, from 1.1.1.1, 00:01:56 ago, via
Ethernet1/0> >> Route metric is 11, traffic share count is 1> >>> >> R2#> >>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> >> R2#sh route-map> >> route-map ospf2rip,
permit, sequence 10> >> Match clauses:> >> Set clauses:> >> tag 2> >> Policy
routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes> >> R2#> >>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> >> R3#sh ip route 1.1.1.1> >> Routing entry
for 1.1.1.1/32> >> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 2> >> Tag 2> >>
Redistributing via rip> >> Last update from 23.23.23.2 on Ethernet0/1,
00:00:06 ago> >> Routing Descriptor Blocks:> >> * 23.23.23.2, from 23.23.23.2,
00:00:06 ago, via Ethernet0/1> >> Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1>
>>> >> R3#> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> >>> >>> >> Regards,> >>> >>
Antonio Soares> >> CCIE #18473, CCNP, CCIP> >>> >> -----Original Message----->
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of> >>
Julio Carrasco> >> Sent: sexta-feira, 7 de Setembro de 2007 18:36> >> To: Bit
Gossip; ccielab@groupstudy.com> >> Subject: Re: is IGP tag transitive> >>> >>
Hi Bit,> >>> >> RIP do not support tags.> >>> >> ----- Original Message ----->
>> From: "Bit Gossip" <bit.gossip@chello.nl>> >> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>>
>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 6:39 PM> >> Subject: is IGP tag
transitive> >>> >>> >>> Experts,> >>> I was under the impression that if
routing protocol A set a tag value on> > >>> a> >>> certain prefix, when this
prefix is redistributed into protocol B the > >>> tag> >>> value is
preserved.> >>> My lab is showing instead that this is not true at least from
OSPF to > >>> RIP.> >>> What is the real truth here?> >>> Thanks,> >>> bit.>
>>>> >>> Routing entry for 204.12.3.0/24> >>> Known via "ospf 1", distance
110, metric 20> >>> Tag 125, type extern 2, forward metric 128> >>>
Redistributing via rip> >>> Advertised by rip metric 1 route-map OR> >>> Last
update from 145.3.23.2 on Serial4/0.23, 00:08:00 ago> >>> Routing Descriptor
Blocks:> >>> * 145.3.23.2, from 150.3.5.5, 00:08:00 ago, via Serial4/0.23> >>>
Route metric is 20, traffic share count is 1> >>> Route tag 125
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<> >>>> >>>> >>> *Sep 7 16:44:46.833: RIP: sending v2 update
to 224.0.0.9 via> >>> FastEthernet1/0> >>> (145.3.36.3)> >>> *Sep 7
16:44:46.833: RIP: build update entries> >>> <....>> >>>> >>> *Sep 7
16:44:46.837: 204.12.3.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0> >>> <<<<<<<<<> >>>>
>>> Rack3R3#> >>>> >>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:10 ART