From: Chan Hong (chan_hong33@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Dec 24 2007 - 16:41:50 ART
Dear Scott,
You did a redistribute connected LP0 on ospf process, right?
Then
when you redistribute other routing process, like RIP, the connected route
won't redistribute into OSPF process because you have already commit
redistribute connected action on ospf process. Which hit below rule.
>
--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
Now you want to
redistribute ospf into rip. However, the Loopback, which advertise via
redistribution, is NOT under ospf process because you just redistribute it
intoospf. The loopback subnet will appear in other ospf routers as a LSA type
5 but it is not under ospf in the redistribution router. It can be proved by
show ip ospf interface brief
Then, when you redistribute ospf into rip, the
loopback interface shouldn't included. If you still see this route in rip,
that route maybe redistributed in other ospf to rip redistribution router.
This is my thinking, and I just test it in my lab(redistribute connected route
won't redistribute into other routing process and not exist in "show ip ospf
int b"). Should be correct but just correct me if I am wrong.
Regards,
Howard
----- 6l%s-l%s ----
1H%s$H!R Scott Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>
&,%s$H Joseph Saad <joseph.samir.saad@gmail.com>; groupstudy
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
6G0e$i4A!R 2007 &~ 12$k 22 $i ,P4A$; $U$H 2:44:02
%DCD!G RE: Has Redistribution Behavior Changed Or Am I High?
Thanks Joseph,
That's a really excellent suggestion. I typically do 'debug ip routing' to
ensure that I don't have any loops going on but I didn't think to
specifically
do it for this one task. So it turns out that debugging ip
routing and
alternatively entering 'redistribute connected metric 1' and the
no form of
same under RIP produces exactly nothing by way of any output.
Again, long
and unfocused day, I'll start again in the morning...
Thanks!
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Saad
Sent: Friday, December
21, 2007 11:20 PM
To: groupstudy
Subject: Re: Has Redistribution Behavior
Changed Or Am I High?
2 things that I typically do during redistribution
1)
Enable "debug ip routing" on the internal routers, "logging buffered
1000"
or
2) sh ip route summary
Also sometimes, I am better off removing the whole
"router ospf" process and
reapply it and ofcourse "clear ip route" to see the
impacts.
Joseph.
On Dec 22, 2007 9:47 AM, Scott M Vermillion
<scott@it-ag.com> wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
>
> Just to clarify, there was a
separate task to redistribute my Lo0 into
> OSPF
> early on in the lab (and
the task requirement can only be met via
> redistribution - a network
statement or 'ip ospf 100 area 0' at the
> interface level are both expressly
prohibited). Then, separately, at the
> end of the IGP section, I'm to
redistribute OSPF into RIP and RIP into
> OSPF.
> In the SG, they have
'redistribute connected' under the RIP process. A
> brief mention is made in
the lab breakdown video that this is because of
> the
> earlier redistribution
of connected into OSPF. However, I find no
> apparent
> difference in any
routing table regardless of this commands presence or
> absence under RIP. Of
course, it's been a long day and I haven't been
> focused at all since I
started out this morning. So maybe a good night's
> sleep will help. Also,
I'll try to navigate back to that section of the
> IE
> ATC CoD. I remember
this being discussed at length but I apparently don't
> yet have it all
committed to memory.
>
>
>
> Thanks much,
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Kim
teu [mailto:kim.teu@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:41 PM
>
To: Scott M Vermillion
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Has
Redistribution Behavior Changed Or Am I High?
>
>
>
> Scott,
>
> The
"redistribute connec route-map LOOPBACK_ONLY" should be under RIP
> process,
not OSPF process. Then, when you redistribute ospf under RIP,
> only
>
loopback interface get redistributed, but not other OSPF enabled
> interfaces.
>
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/21/07, 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
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:32 ARST