Re: Route Tagging with Default Route

Thanks guys.

On 7 October 2010 16:58, garry baker <baker.garry_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> ok got it, seems to be a sound theory, i will roll with it...
>
> thanks..
> garry..
>
> --
> Garry L. Baker
>
> "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Bob Sinclair <bob_at_bobsinclair.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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 - 18:30:56 ART