That's what I have always thought but this is what I am seeing:
R2----------
| |
| |
RIP EIGRP
| |
| |
R5-----------
Mutual redistribution on both R2 and R5 between the RIP and EIGRP domains.
Without a "set" command added to the route-map, it appears the route is
being matched correctly but the tag is being stripped when redistributed
into RIP from EIGRP. This is causing me some route oscillation headaches
between the two domains.
The following configuration is applied on R5. The routes I'm particularly
interested in are tagged 2110 (from an OSPF domain elsewhere in the topology
but irrelevant):
R5#sh run | sec route-map eigrp-->rip
redistribute eigrp 20 metric 5 route-map eigrp-->rip
route-map eigrp-->rip deny 10
match tag 120
route-map eigrp-->rip permit 20
match tag 1110
route-map eigrp-->rip permit 25
match tag 2110
route-map eigrp-->rip permit 30
set tag 90
Now on R2 I'm seeing routes originally tagged with 2110 showing up in RIP
with no tag. Since they do not have tag of 90, they must be hitting the
correct match statement:
R2#sh ip route 10.10.10.8
Routing entry for 10.10.10.8/32
Known via "rip", distance 80, metric 5
Redistributing via ospf 100, eigrp 20, rip
Advertised by ospf 100 subnets route-map rip-->ospf
eigrp 20 metric 1 1 1 1 1 route-map rip-->eigrp
Last update from 216.30.25.5 on Serial0/2/0, 00:00:00 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 216.30.25.5, from 216.30.25.5, 00:00:00 ago, via Serial0/2/0
Route metric is 5, traffic share count is 1
Now when I add a "set" command under the match for tag 2110 on R5:
R5#sh run | sec route-map eigrp-->rip
redistribute eigrp 20 metric 5 route-map eigrp-->rip
route-map eigrp-->rip deny 10
match tag 120
route-map eigrp-->rip permit 20
match tag 1110
route-map eigrp-->rip permit 25
match tag 2110
set tag 2110
route-map eigrp-->rip permit 30
set tag 90
I now see the route on R2 correctly tagged.
R2#sh ip route 10.10.10.8
Routing entry for 10.10.10.8/32
Known via "rip", distance 80, metric 5
Tag 2110
Redistributing via ospf 100, eigrp 20, rip
Advertised by ospf 100 subnets route-map rip-->ospf
Last update from 216.30.25.5 on Serial0/2/0, 00:00:13 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 216.30.25.5, from 216.30.25.5, 00:00:13 ago, via Serial0/2/0
Route metric is 5, traffic share count is 1
Route tag 2110
Weird stuff and an annoying little inconsistency. This is being done on
12.4(24)T2.
Thanks,
Steve
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tyson Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> As long as you use a match command so it is not being reset by the new
> set you do not need to.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
>
> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>
> Mailto: [email protected]
>
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208
>
> Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
>
> eFax: +1.810.454.0130
>
>
>
> IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand,
> Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco
> CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with
> training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and
> Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at
> www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Shaw
> *Sent:* Monday, June 21, 2010 7:31 AM
> *To:* CCIE OSL
> *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_RS] RIPv2 and Route Tag Matching
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm working on some redistribution in Vol 2. Lab 2 and, maybe I've never
> noticed (and probably a source of my redistribution woes) but do route tags
> in RIPv2 need to be matched and re-set in a route-map when doing
> redistribution between transit IGPs?
>
> I've tested it and it appears to be the case but would someone confirm I am
> not completely insane?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit
www.ipexpert.com
