Re: RIPv2 Vs EIGRP Autosummarization

Lz
Okuie.sl
ZlklsooslskdkzE:jczzE:zzzsdklisdjk

On Mar 7, 2011 11:46 AM, "Narbik Kocharians" <narbikk_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish i had access to a rack of routers, but this is how it works, and
> please lab it up and see it for your self:
>
> R1 (F0/0 - 10.1.12.1 /24) --------------------------------------- (F0/0 -
> 10.1.12.2 /24) R2 (F0/1 - 10.1.23.2 /24)
> ------------------------------------------------ (F0/1 - 10.1.23.3 /24) R3
>
> So what you should do is the following:
> Create a loopback 0 interface on R3, and assign an ip addr of 3.3.3.3
/24--
> Advertise it in RIPv2
> Create a loopback 0 interface on R2, and assign an ip addr of 2.2.2.2
/24--
> advertise it in RIPv2
> On R2, create a loopback 99 and assign an ip addr of 99.9.9.9 /24 and
> redistribute connected
>
> So this is what it should look like:
>
> On R1
> router rip
> ver 2
> netw 10.0.0.0
>
> On R2
> router rip
> ver 2
> netw 10.0.0.0
> netw 2.0.0.0
> redistri connected route-map 99 metric 1
>
> route-map 99
> matc inter lo99
>
> On R3
> router rip
> netw 10.0.0.0
> netw 3.0.0.0
> ver 2
>
> On R1
> you should see the following:
> 2.0.0.0 /8
> 3.0.0.0 /8
> 99.0.0.0 /8
> 10.1.23.0 /24 ----- because this subnet is contiguous.
>
> Now....On R3
> router rip
> no au
>
> The above change in R3's configuration will not make a difference, because
> R2 will summarize it to 3.0.0.0 /8.
>
> If you change the configuration to eigrp, things should look a little
> better:
>
> On R1
> router eigrp 100
> netw 10.1.12.1 0.0.0.0
>
> On R2
> router eigrp 100
> netw 10.1.12.2 0.0.0.0
> netw 10.1.23.2 0.0.0.0
> redistr connected route-map 99 metric 1 1 1 1 1
>
> route-map 99
> match int lo99
>
> On R3
> router eigrp 100
> netw 3.3.3.3 0.0.0.0
> netw 10.1.23.3 0.0.0.0
>
> You should see the following on R1:
> 2.0.0.0 /8
> 3.0.0.0 /8
> 99.9.9.0 /24 ---- Unlike RIPv2, Eigrp does not summarize the redistributed
> routes.
> 10.1.23.0 /24
>
> NOW....Let's go to R3 and do the following:
>
> On R3
> router eigrp 100
> no au
>
> On R1 you should see the following:
> 2.0.0.0 /8
> 99.9.9.0 /24
> 3.3.3.0 /24 --- So you see eigrp will not summarize what's advertised to
it
> in this case, whereas, Ripv2 will.
> 10.1.23.0 /24
>
>
>
> I hope this helped.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:22 AM, hady tannous <hadytannous_at_hotmail.com
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Nabrik,
>>
>> Forget about my previous mail.
>>
>> It doesn't make much sense technically since that network will be
>> participating in RIP and wouldn't need redistribution
>>
>> Back to the original question :
>>
>> 1- What's the difference between autosummarization on RIPv2 and EIGRP in
>> case we are crossing major network or in the caseof the same major
network
>> but different subnet masks like the one below
>>
>>
>> LAN 1 <----------> R1 <----- serial -----> R2 <----- serial -----> R3
>> 10.10.10.1/24 10.0.12.0/30 10.0.23.0/30
>>
>>
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> From: hadytannous_at_hotmail.com
>> To: narbikk_at_gmail.com
>>
>> CC: aaron1_at_gvtc.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: RIPv2 Vs EIGRP Autosummarization
>> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:50:28 +0000
>>
>>
>> Hi Nabrik,
>>
>> Is that while crossing major networks or the same major network but
>> different subnet masks length
>>
>> let's say i have the following topology :
>>
>> LAN 1 <----------> R1 <----- serial -----> R2 <----- serial -----> R3
>> 10.10.10.1/24 10.0.12.0/30 10.0.23.0/30
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If i redistribute connected on R1 into RIP. How will R3 see the routes ?
>>
>> Thx
>>
>> > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:18:44 -0800
>> > Subject: Re: RIPv2 Vs EIGRP Autosummarization
>> > From: narbikk_at_gmail.com
>> > To: hadytannous_at_hotmail.com
>> > CC: aaron1_at_gvtc.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> >
>> > Just to add to whats been said.
>> > RIPv2 (With auto summary) will summarize the redistributed routes to
>> their
>> > major network boundary, whereas, Eigrp (With Auto summary) will NOT do
>> that.
>> >
>> > That's if i am reading your question correcly.
>> > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:48 PM, hady tannous <hadytannous_at_hotmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thx Aaron
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Does RIPv2 summarizes accross discontiguous subnet masks ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > TIA
>> > >
>> > > > CC: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> > > > From: aaron1_at_gvtc.com
>> > > > Subject: Re: RIPv2 Vs EIGRP Autosummarization
>> > > > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:00:47 -0600
>> > > > To: hadytannous_at_hotmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > One thing I know is eigrp installs summary route to null0; I don't
>> think
>> > > ripv2 does that.... AD difference I think is 5 and 120
>> > > >
>> > > > Aaron
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mar 6, 2011, at 2:57 AM, hady tannous <hadytannous_at_hotmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What's the difference between RIPv2 Vs EIGRP Autosummarization ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > TIA
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 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
>> > >
>> > >
Received on Mon Mar 07 2011 - 20:25:46 ART