From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:47:27 ART
Yeah, I'm thinking I've got that wrong somehow. I need to go back through
the Brians' CoD and figure out what all that business was about. But I
didn't totally make it up, or this 'redistribute connected' wouldn't be in
the SG under RIP...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Saad
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:38 PM
To: groupstudy
Subject: Re: Has Redistribution Behavior Changed Or Am I High?
This paragraph:
--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
doesn't make sense to me.
On Dec 22, 2007 7:28 AM, Scott M Vermillion <scott@it-ag.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:31 ARST