From: iSamuel (uniqsam@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2009 - 21:26:38 ARST
I thought there is a difference between two methods.First one just includes
connected interfaces that are running the source protocol and second one
includes all interfaces.
According to DOC CD,
"include-connected: Allows the target protocol to redistribute routes
learned by the source protocol and connected prefixes on those interfaces
over which the source protocol is running."
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Samuel.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:31 PM, James MacDonald <j4m3sm63@yahoo.ca> 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
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