From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Mon Dec 24 2007 - 16:46:27 ART
Hi Howard,
Yeah, I really imploded on this one. No more redistribution tasks at the
witching hour for me, I!/m tellin!/ ya. Thanks much for the nice write-up.
I appreciate your time and your thoughts!-
Regards,
Scott
From: Chan Hong [mailto:chan_hong33@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:42 PM
To: Scott Vermillion; Joseph Saad; groupstudy
Subject: Re#: Has Redistribution Behavior Changed Or Am I High?
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
----- `]<~T-<~ ----
<D<~HK)s Scott Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>
JU<~HK Joseph Saad <joseph.samir.saad@gmail.com>; groupstudy
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
wKMHUFZ)s 2007 Dj 12TB 22 HU PGFZAy OBNg 2:44:02
Vwn}#: 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:32 ARST