Re: Control redistribution: Route-map vs. distribute list

Hi Shaun,

In ur solution 2, u are just filtering the routes going out of eigrp 100
enabled interfaces . So this particular 24.234.0.0/24 network will be denied
when eigrp 100 is sending its updates to all its neighbors.
This will take effect on all EIGRP 100 enabled interfaces.

In ur solution 1 , u r just denying this particular route should not be
redistributed into different process.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Shaun Gomez (4g1vn)
<shaun.gomez_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> So here is the example.
>
> Redistribute EIGRP 4 into EIGRP 100 but, filter routes is 24.234.0.0/24 *
> range* from R2 into the rest of EIGRP 100 routing domain.
>
> Solution #1 (my first choice):
>
> Router eigrp 100
> Redistribute eigrp 4 route-map FILTER
>
> ip prefix-list FILTER seq 5 deny 24.234.0.0/24 le 32
> ip prefix-list FILTER seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
> !
> route-map FILTER permit 10
> match ip address prefix-list FILTER
>
> Solution #2 (text book answer):
>
> router eigrp 100
> redistribute eigrp 4
> distribute-list 1 out serial 0/0/0
>
> access-list 1 deny 24.234.0.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 1 permit any
>
> This issue I have with this is there are a bunch of 24.234.0.x/30 prefixes
> that are supposed to be blocked according to the "sh ip route eigrp"
> output.
>
>
> Your thoughts on distribute-list vs. route-map. This workbook is dated 2007
> so, it may be a little old as they are not using prefix lists in most
> examples.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
With Warmest Regards,
CCIE KID
IN PURSUIT OF CCIE
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net