Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?

From: Roger RPF (rpf@bluemail.ch)
Date: Thu May 22 2008 - 17:16:14 ART

• Next message: lei tian: "Re: no ip pim dm-fallback vs no ip pim autorp listener"
• Previous message: Atlanta CCIE: "Re: OT - CCDE"
• Next in thread: Joseph Brunner: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Maybe reply: Joseph Brunner: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Maybe reply: Ibrahim kabir: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Maybe reply: Rik Guyler: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Group,

Maybe this is a silly question but somehow I cannot find the real answer.

When should we use the network statement and when should we use the
redistribute connected route-map... to include the loopback into the routing
protocol?
I mean, it is clear to me, when redistributing Ill have another metric and
the route will be external to the routing protocol but does it really
matter?

What is reason to use one over the other?

Thanks

Roger

• Next message: lei tian: "Re: no ip pim dm-fallback vs no ip pim autorp listener"
• Previous message: Atlanta CCIE: "Re: OT - CCDE"
• Next in thread: Joseph Brunner: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Maybe reply: Joseph Brunner: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Maybe reply: Ibrahim kabir: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Maybe reply: Rik Guyler: "RE: Loopback interfaces -> redistributing or network?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:18 ART