From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2008 - 18:16:03 ART
Hey Nit,
A couple of perspectives on this thing you may (or may not) find of
interest:
http://forum.internetworkexpert.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/21068
/page/1#Post21068
http://forum.internetworkexpert.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/23889
/page/2#Post23889
Those are just the two most recent threads from the old forum archives.
There are older ones and likely newer ones as well...
Cheers,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Nitro Drops
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:04 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: IEWB Lab7 Task4.11 - IGP Redistribution
This Lab is really awesome with a difficulty rating of 9. Really lost on
this
task. Read through the explanation for this task, still kind of lost.
R4
router rip
redistribute ospf 1 metric 1
distance 109 163.1.45.5 0.0.0.0 RIP_ROUTES
!
ip access-list standard RIP_ROUTES
permit 150.1.7.0
permit 163.1.57.0
permit 163.1.7.0
R5
router rip
redistribute ospf 1 metric 1
distance 109 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 RIP_ROUTES
!
ip access-list standard RIP_ROUTES
permit 150.1.7.0
permit 163.1.57.0
permit 163.1.7.0
permit 192.10.1.0
Q1.) On R5, how come the ACL is only matching 4 subnets, 2 subnets from R4
and
2 subnets from SW1. Routes from the OSPF Area 0 has been redistributed into
the RIP domain and became RIP routes with a metric of 120,
- 163.1.3.0/24
- 163.1.0.128/25
- 163.1.0.0/25
Shouldnt these 3 subnets be lowered to a metric of 109 also?
Q2.) On R4, same question, does the ACL needs to match
- 163.1.3.0/24
- 163.1.0.128/25
- 163.1.0.0/25
Q3.) On R4, when using the distance command, can i use '0.0.0.0
255.255.255.255' instead of
'163.1.45.5 0.0.0.0' for the neighbor where the route is learned from.
Any replies are much appreciated. This is really a tough lab!
Cheers
Nit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2008 - 09:26:17 ART