From: Anthony Sequeira (asequeira@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sat Jan 17 2009 - 00:41:11 ARST
Yes - I would recommend you not go too crazy in your studies in this
area...even though the blueprint mentions OSPFv3 and RIPng, it is not
guaranteeing you that you will have both protocols in your lab scenario.
If I were a proctor and I made you take the time to configure two
different IPv6 routing domains, I certainly would not then have you
take a bunch of time for a very complex redistribution scenario. As
you pointed out - too cruel and too out of balance for the rest of the
lab.
Anthony J. Sequeira, CCIE #15626, CCSI #23251
Senior CCIE Instructor
asequeira@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344
On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:23 PM, James MacDonald wrote:
> thanks for the quick reply ... i was hoping there wasn't some
> "hidden" feature or lack-there-of that would get me ... that makes
> sense that it's just 2 ways of doing it with one offering a little
> granularity ... one of my biggest fears is to walk into the lab and
> get mutual redistribution at multiple points ... in IPv6! I don't
> think Cisco would be that cruel though ... :)
>
> ------------------------------
> Jim MacDonald
> j4m3sm63@yahoo.ca
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Anthony Sequeira <asequeira@internetworkexpert.com>
> To: James MacDonald <j4m3sm63@yahoo.ca>
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:16:43 PM
> Subject: Re: IPV6 - redistribution
>
> It would appear the only difference is that with the second approach
> you can assign a different metric value for the connected interfaces
> versus the non-connected interfaces.
>
> If that is not relevant for your lab scenario - go with the first
> approach since you can get it done with fewer keystrokes.
>
> :-)
>
> Anthony J. Sequeira, CCIE #15626, CCSI #23251
> Senior CCIE Instructor
>
> asequeira@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> Outside US: 775-826-4344
>
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:31 PM, James MacDonald wrote:
>
>> Just did a lab asking for mutual redistribution of OSPFv3 and
>> RIPng ... i used the following:
>>
>> ipv6 router ospf 1
>> redistribute rip RIP include-connected
>> ipv6 router rip RIP
>> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1 include-connected
>>
>> ... verification seems to check out fine ... the solution seems to
>> have a different approach:
>>
>> ipv6 router ospf 1
>> redistribute rip RIP
>> redistribute connected
>> ipv6 router rip RIP
>> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1
>> redistribute connected metric 1
>>
>> ... is there any major difference in how these 2 methods perform?
>> Is there a reason to use method 2 over method 1 (assuming you do
>> want the connected routes also of course) ... i know both work, i'm
>> just wondering if there is something extra special in the 2nd
>> method i may need to know about.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Jim MacDonald
>> j4m3sm63@yahoo.ca
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new
>> Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:38 ARST