Thanks guys for the feedback. Probably a tunneling solution will be implemented in the near future.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Tyson Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > Configure DMVPN and get rid of this crap. Crazy that an ISP is not using > L3 VPN to hide other customers but get the problem resolved by isolating the > domans. > > > > 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 *Daniel Gheorghe > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:25 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_RS] RIP filtering based on tags > > > > Guys, > > > > Here is a situation I am dealing with, maybe you can give me some ideeas. > It's a real-life scenario, but it's all about routing, so I don't think I am > violating any of the mailing list rules. > > > > We have a customer HQ connected to many branches over a very stange ISP > connection. By "strange" I mean the ISP is running RIP with the customer > routers and also RIP between it's core routers all the way to the branches. > > > > The situation becomes even weirder: both the customer and the ISP are using > the same address space, something like 192.168.0.0/16. The ISP is offering > the same transport service to many other customers, and announced all the > customer of the situation, including the fact that if any of the customer > routes will interfere with the internal addresing, it will be dropped. > > > > The problem that arises from this situation is that the customer we are > talking about (the one with the overlapping address space) has problems > every time the ISP changes it's topoplogy or assignes new addresses or > connects a new client. > > > > The temporary solution is a manual distribute list that filters those "evil > routes". But I would like to offer them an automated filtering solutions. > *My ideea is tagging the routes from the branches, at the redistribution > in the RIP process, and filtering all others at the HQ, based on that tag. > So only my tagged routes should be accepted.* > > > > Topology: > > > > HQ ---------(RIP)-------- PE router -----------(RIP)------ ISP cloud > -----------(RIP)---------- branches > > > > So the HQ router is running RIP with the first PE router, and learns ALL > the routes from it (the branch routes and also the other internal WAN ISP > routes we don't care about). > > The metric for the routes is random, so the only option I am thinking is > filtering based on tags. > > > > BUT, what options do I have of doing this on the HQ router ? The > distribute-list feature does not support route-maps options as far as I > know. > > > > Excluded possible solutions: another routing protocol / internal ISP RIP > manipulations. > > > > > > Daniel G. >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
