From: Rich Collins (nilsi2002@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 11:45:52 ART
I see that your workaround does work. But do you know why the tag
is not transitive in this case as we think it should and how you discovered
this workaround?
I'm curious why this behavior does not seem to be more well known and
showing up in the group study list more often.
Rich
On 9/9/07, Bit Gossip <bit.gossip@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> Now maybe I understand why certain redistribution I have done using tag
> and filter were going belly up :-)
>
> Anyway I think there is a workaround
>
> router rip
> redistribute ospf 1 route-map WORKAROUND
>
> route-map WORKAROUND
> match tag 1
> set tag 1
>
> Funny enough but this way the tag is carried over to RIP
>
> Bit.
>
> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 22:59 +0100, Antonio Soares wrote:
> > 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#
> > >>>
> > >>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > >
> > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > 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 Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:10 ART