From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2008 - 17:06:57 ARST
Hey John,
You're doing IEWB Vol II, no? Might be a good idea at this point if you
just tell us which lab. Maybe somebody will remember that task or will have
taken some notes on it (I took extensive notes on the earlier labs, then
really none at all towards the end). I do recall times when this sort of
thing made sense to do. I also seem to recall one or two cases where I
tested the configuration and something like this made zero observable
difference. In the latter case, I chalked it up to an "artifact" of a
previous version of the lab. They do update these over time and sometimes
there are orphans left behind in the Solutions Guide...
Just a thought.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of John
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Sadiq Yakasai
Cc: Hash Aminu; Carlos Alberto Trujillo Jimenez; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: redistribution
Sadiq,
No there is one, and only one point of redistribution. The rip routing
information has no way through the ospf domain to get back to the
originating router(redistribution point) t. Thats why I didn't bothr with a
detailed description of the network.
I'm only talking about one point of redistribution between the two routing
domains. There are no other points of redistribution between the ospf and
rip domains. The rip domain does connect to a backbone router which is part
of the rip domain.. So there again I'm wondering why make the AD on the
redistributed ospf routes lower than the ospf routes on that router? What
is it about the rip domain that would require that when there are no other
redistribution points for that network?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sadiq Yakasai" <sadiqtanko@gmail.com>
To: "John" <jgarrison1@austin.rr.com>
Cc: "Hash Aminu" <hashng@gmail.com>; "Carlos Alberto Trujillo Jimenez"
<carlos.trujillo.jimenez@gmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: redistribution
> Hey John :) i think I got a hold of the scenario here, see if its wat
> you are trying to explain:
>
> From what I understand here, you seem to have a loop in the OSPF
> domain where the rip routes are redistributed in OSPF but they go into
> the OSPF domain and have the potential of cycling and coming back to
> this router that is actually redistributing these routes.
>
> When they come back to this router (if they do), they have the
> potential of displacing the RIP routes and thereby disrupting this
> routers belief of where the routes actually originated from because of
> the fact that OSPF routes (AD 110) will displace RIP routes (AD 120).
> Now the safest practice here is to make RIP routes have an AD of 109
> so that no matter what, this router will always prefer the RIP
> prefixes and will always redistribute them into OSPF.
>
> HTH
>
> Sadiq
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:52 ART