From: Rich Collins (nilsi2002@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 19 2007 - 14:47:34 ART
Hi Joe,
Did you see this thread from last week? We noticed some problems with lost
tags through redistr iterations of RIP.
Thread :"is IGP tag transitive"
Rich*
*
On 9/19/07, Joe Dewberry <jdewberry@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 - 12:01:13 ART