RE: Route Tagging with Default Route

Hi Garry,

To confirm: you generate the default under OSPF on R1, then on R2 you are
redistributing OSPF into RIP. R2 and R3 are running RIP, and the tag does
not get sent into RIP.

I think this is the same issue Muzammil was seeing: after the first default
refresh on your R2, RIP "appears" to consider the source of the default to
become internal, not external, and the internal route has no tag.

The attempt to get around this (and confirm the theory) involves generating
the default as an internal RIP route on R2, using "default-information
originate route-map tag" under the R2 RIP process. That way R2 sees the
internal route with the tag. So as far as the 0/0 route is concerned, it is
not being redistributed from OSPF on R2, but is generated and tagged as an
internal route. It appears that, at least in these IOS, RIP relearns the
0/0 route as internal on the first RT refresh.

At least, that is the theory! :}

Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427
CIERS2 Online Instructor
www.tinyurl.com/ciers2online

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> garry baker
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: Muzammil Malick
> Cc: bob_at_bobsinclair.net; Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: Route Tagging with Default Route
>
> Bob,
>
> I my setup R1 <-> R2 <-> R3
>
> I use that "default-information originate route-map tag" on my R1 it
> sends
> the default 0/0 route to R2 and then it does not pass the tag to R3
> after
> redistribution at R2
>
> if i match 300 and set 300 it will but the same problem when the
> refresh
> kicks in...
>
> what am i missing?
>
> R2:
> router rip
> version 2
> redistribute ospf 1 metric 11 route-map OSPF2RIP
> passive-interface default
> no passive-interface FastEthernet0/1
> network 10.0.0.0
> no auto-summary
>
> route-map OSPF2RIP permit 10
> match tag 300
> !
> route-map OSPF2RIP permit 20
> match source-protocol ospf 1
> set tag 110
>
> R3:
> R3#sh ip route 100.100.100.100
> Routing entry for 100.100.100.100/32
> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 11
> Tag 110
> Redistributing via rip
> Last update from 10.23.23.2 on FastEthernet0/1, 00:00:02 ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 10.23.23.2, from 10.23.23.2, 00:00:02 ago, via FastEthernet0/1
> Route metric is 11, traffic share count is 1
> Route tag 110
>
> R3#sh ip route 0.0.0.0
> Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0, supernet
> Known via "rip", distance 120, metric 11, candidate default path
> Redistributing via rip
> Last update from 10.23.23.2 on FastEthernet0/1, 00:00:10 ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 10.23.23.2, from 10.23.23.2, 00:00:10 ago, via FastEthernet0/1
> Route metric is 11, traffic share count is 1
>
>
>
>
> --
> Garry L. Baker
>
> "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Muzammil Malick <malickmuz_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Bob, I think you are right, I was wondering myself if the refresh was
> > linked to the issue.
> >
> > On 7 October 2010 15:39, Bob Sinclair <bob_at_bobsinclair.net> wrote:
> > > Hi Muzammil,
> > >
> > > I tried with "default-information originate route-map tag" And the
> tag
> > > sticks.
> > >
> > > Here is my theory:
> > >
> > > The trigger for the tag withdrawal seems to be the default refresh,
> > > indicated by this output from debug ip routing: " RT: NET-RED
> 0.0.0.0/0
> > "
> > >
> > > With default-information originate, this refresh did not cause a
> > withdrawal
> > > of the tag. Perhaps the refresh causes RIP to see the
> redistributed
> > route
> > > as internal, and it is resent as a new route, without the tag?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427
> > > CIERS2 Online Instructor
> > > www.tinyurl.com/ciers2online
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf Of
> > >> Muzammil Malick
> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:30 AM
> > >> To: garry baker
> > >> Cc: Cisco certification
> > >> Subject: Re: Route Tagging with Default Route
> > >>
> > >> Bob, that is very interesting, because it is probably exactly what
> I
> > >> am seeing, I just never saw the early debug that shows the tag
> being
> > >> added and then removed later.
> > >>
> > >> Gary, myself and Bob are able to get at least some routes tagged,
> it
> > >> is the default that is the problem.
> > >>
> > >> My config is as follows:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> route-map OSPF2RIP permit 10
> > >> set tag 110
> > >>
> > >> router rip
> > >> redistribute ospf 1 metric 5 route-map OSPF2RIP
> > >>
> > >> I don't have the complete config because im at work at the moment.
> > >>
> > >> On 7 October 2010 15:20, garry baker <baker.garry_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > yeah i miss read that...i thought you were going the other
> way...
> > >> >
> > >> > i tried this with a simple 3 router setup R1 <-> R2 <-> R3
> > >> >
> > >> > and i cannot get any tags on the OSPF2RIP routes when i
> redistribute
> > >> with
> > >> > the route-map
> > >> >
> > >> > but the other way RIP2OSPF works like a charm with the tag
> keyword in
> > >> ospf
> > >> >
> > >> > i am using Version 12.4(15)T14 on GNS3 for my lab
> > >> >
> > >> > what does your config look like?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Garry L. Baker
> > >> >
> > >> > "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Muzammil Malick
> <malickmuz_at_gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Gary, not sure if I understand?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> the route is originated in OSPF using default-information-
> originate,
> > >> >> but the routes are not being tagged when they are redistributed
> into
> > >> >> RIP. Did you get this the wrong way round below or am I
> > >> >> misunderstanding you?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 7 October 2010 14:50, garry baker <baker.garry_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >> > if the route is originated by OSPF, then it will not be
> 'tagged'
> > >> as RIP
> > >> >> > routes are sent into OSPF...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > is there a way to make the default a RIP route and see if the
> tag
> > >> shows
> > >> >> > up
> > >> >> > after redistribution?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > Garry L. Baker
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Muzammil Malick
> > >> <malickmuz_at_gmail.com>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Hi Guys
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Hope someone can help me out.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I am redistributing routes into RIP from OSPF. I have a
> route-map
> > >> that
> > >> >> >> sets a tag on the routes as they are redistributed into RIP.
> > >> >> >> The problem is that all the routes seem to be tagged apart
> from
> > >> the
> > >> >> >> default route. The default route which is originated in OSPF
> > >> always
> > >> >> >> seems to have a tag of "0" when I debug RIP updates, however
> all
> > >> the
> > >> >> >> other routes have the correct tag of "110"
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Any ideas?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Thanks
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > >> Subscription information may be found at:
> > >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date:
> > >> 10/07/10 02:34:00
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date:
> 10/07/10 02:34:00

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Oct 07 2010 - 11:17:53 ART