From: Carlos Trujillo Jimenez (nergal888@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2007 - 00:26:57 ART
It is not mentioned in the task... it probably means no. I suppose
>From: Darby Weaver <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2007 02:59:06.0684 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[553397C0:01C81CFC]
>
>Is optimal routing even the goal of the lab in
>question?
>
>
>--- Carlos Trujillo Jimenez <nergal888@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
> > The same, redistribution is killin me also...
> > Noticed in some (not all)
> > toplogies at internetworkexpert labs, that there is
> > no way to have optimal
> > routing I hace tried changing distances, metrics,
> > taggig, but there is no
> > way sometimes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: <hadek.el-ayachi@nsn.com>
> > >Return-Path: ccielab-owner@groupstudy.com
> > >
> > >I had many problems trying to avoid suboptimal
> > routing and loops in such
> > >a topology. My advices are :
> > >- Don't try to avoid suboptimal routing if it is
> > not asked for, only
> > >loops are indesirable
> > >- there is always a straightforward, a very simple
> > solution for each
> > >senario instead of changing AD,tagging here and
> > there and creat some
> > >mind loops
> > >- redistribution is a manual process. Put your
> > self, in a round robin
> > >style, in one routing protocol and see what can
> > happen to you internal
> > >routes as well as you external routes seperatly
> > when coming back to you.
> > >- use metric instead of AD or tags.
> > >- pay more attention to external routes for each
> > protocol
> > >BR
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > >ext Xiao Li
> > >Sent: jeudi 1 novembre 2007 10:47
> > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: redistributing.. again..
> > >
> > >Hi, I was doing core work book lab 6 this
> > afternoon and the
> > >redistribution really got me hard. I thought of
> > using distance to limit
> > >route feed back is convenient and reliable.. it
> > proves me wrong.
> > >OSPF, RIP , EIGRP are mutually redistributed on R3,
> > R4 and R5.. so I
> > >apply the golden rules: from lower ad to higher
> > ad, no worries, routes
> > >will never get feed back to the lower ad domain
> > because the higher ad
> > >route will not get in the routing table at the
> > other redistribution
> > >point... checked from higher ad to lower ad, use
> > distances command to
> > >lower down the ad for the redistributed routes..
> > checked I thought
> > >that should more or less has done the magic
> > automatically.. but I keep
> > >getting routing loops for routes coming from the
> > rip domain.. after some
> > >time i realized that whenever a route is added in
> > the rip domain, the
> > >route is looping between r3, r4, r5.. further i
> > realized that the route
> > >propagation in RIP is much slower than
> > redistributing from
> > >rip->eigrp100->eig!
> > > rp200->rip.. so when the route is ready to be
> > redistributed from
> > >eigrp200->rip at R4, the higher ad rip route (as
> > compared to eigrp
> > >external) did not reach R4 yet to stop it.. and I
> > was careless enough
> > >to put "redistribute eigrp 200 metric 1" under rip,
> > which make it a
> > >prefer rip route from R3 since metric is low. The
> > solution guide does
> > >use metric 10 on R4 and R5, but on R3, it uses
> > metric 1 also. I am
> > >thinking that this can also cause a problem when
> > bb2 advertise new rip
> > >routes or reload, as
> > r5->rip->ospf->eigrp200->eigrp100->r3 could still
> > >go faster than R5->rip->R3. I did not have a time
> > to test this out
> > >though.. will try that later..
> > >
> > > Changing the metric to a higher value when
> > redistributing to rip will
> > >work around this issue, but it does not seem to be
> > a complete solution.
> > >The fact is: for a short period of time, the routes
> > are feed back to rip
> > >domain where is originates. Another problem is:
> > the rip metric can't
> > >really go too high.
> > >
> > > I can't think of a way to use tag either..
> > tags are overridden, and
> > >in this lab there is so many point of
> > redistribution. Is there a way to
> > >append the tag like the AS path does in bgp? Or
> > any other way to better
> > >address this problem? Thanks for the advise.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >Li Xiao
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Get your free suite of Windows Live services!
> > >http://www.get.live.com/wl/all
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> > >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
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > Charla con tus amigos en lmnea mediante MSN
> > Messenger:
> > http://messenger.latam.msn.com/
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:27 ART