From: Scott M Vermillion (scott@it-ag.com)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2007 - 00:28:18 ART
OK folks, admittedly a soft spot in my underbelly here.
Redistribution rules as I have come to understand them (not necessarily in
any kind of order):
--redistribute any routes learned from the protocol being redistributed
--redistribute any connected interfaces that are covered by network
statement under the protocol being redistributed
--however, if a 'redistribute connected' statement exists in the protocol
being redistributed, only redistribute those connected interfaces which are
allowed in the manual 'redistribute connected' statement
So, for example, if I have router R1 running both RIP and OSPF, and I have
redistributed my loopback interface into OSPF with a route-map permitting
*only* the loopback to go into OSPF, then if I then later redistribute OSPF
into RIP, I will get all routes learned by OSPF in RIP but I will not get
the networks of directly connected links/interfaces running OSPF, because my
route-map didn't encompass anything but the loopback interface.
I thought I finally understood this concept correctly. Do I?
Because in my lab, I'm not seeing this. I have the exact scenario above
configured. In a Solutions Guide, it shows doing a 'redistribute connected'
under the RIP process, presumably in an effort to pull in directly connected
non-RIP/OSPF networks as well as those *learned* by OSPF. Right? Or wrong?
Because I am observing zero difference whether this manual redistribution of
connected exists under the RIP process or not. I do in fact seem to get the
directly connected non-RIP/OSPF networks showing up in and being advertised
into RIP, even sans a manual redistribution of connected under RIP.
So I ask you once again, am I on something good? Are my pupils perhaps a
little dilated this evening? Please advise.
Regards all,
Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:31 ARST