From: Joe Dewberry (jdewberry@bellsouth.net)
Date: Wed Sep 19 2007 - 10:32:51 ART
Hi,
I have been tossing around quite a few redistribution schemes and found
the "tagging" method. See a quick snapshot below for RIP & OSPF
!
route-map OSPF-->RIP deny 10
description --- route originated in RIP ---
match tag 1
!
route-map OSPF-->RIP deny 20
description --- route was in EIGRP & RIP ---
match tag 11
!
route-map OSPF-->RIP deny 30
description --- route was in OSPF & RIP ---
match tag 101
!
route-map OSPF-->RIP permit 40
description --- route originated in EIGRP, add OSPF ---
match tag 10
set tag 110
!
route-map OSPF-->RIP permit 50
description --- route originated in OSPF ---
set tag 100
!
route-map RIP-->OSPF deny 10
description --- route originated in OSPF ---
match tag 100
!
route-map RIP-->OSPF deny 20
description --- route was in RIP & OSPF ---
match tag 101
!
route-map RIP-->OSPF deny 30
description --- route was in EIGRP & OSPF ---
match tag 110
!
route-map RIP-->OSPF permit 40
description --- route originated in EIGRP, add RIP ---
match tag 10
set tag 11
!
route-map RIP-->OSPF permit 50
description --- route originated in RIP ---
set tag 1
the values of the tags being
RIP == 1
EIGRP == 10
OSPF == 100
I see the value here as it can do a good job of eliminating unwanted
routes...has anyone come across a scenario (NetMasterClass) where this
would not work/scale?
-- Joe Dewberry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:13 ART