3.9 I wondered if the following message from OSPF on Cat4 had anything to do with the /31 mask on the link between R6 and R9 and if it was merely a informational message or actually botched up something.
Jul 27 10:13:11.407: %OSPF-4-CONFLICTING_LSAID: LSA origination prevented by existing LSA with same LSID but a different mask Existing Type 5 LSA: LSID 172.30.96.0/31 New Destination: 172.30.96.0/32 But the biggest issue i have is that i don't understand why we have to apply the distance command. When RIP routes are being redistributed into OSPF on R2, they are OSPF E2 external. Fine. When OSPF from Area 124 is being redistributed into EIGRP AS 1 they are being external routes 170. Also fine. Then EIGRP is being redistributed into R6 again, making these also OSPF E2 routes. Why do we need to manipulate anything, as the routes clearly comes from different distribution points (i.e route sources). For some reason they all are originated from R2. I can clearly see it works, i just don't understand how. Not working and without applied distance on R6: IPeR6(config-router)#do sh ip route | i 10.0.0.3[586] O E2 10.0.0.35/32 [110/20] via 172.30.100.2, 00:00:08, Serial0/1/0 O E2 10.0.0.38/32 [110/20] via 172.30.100.2, 00:00:08, Serial0/1/0 O E2 10.0.0.36/32 [110/20] via 172.30.100.2, 00:00:08, Serial0/1/0 IPeR6(config-router)#distance 171 10.0.0.5 0.0.0.0 2 Working and with applied distance 171 to neighbor R5: IPeR6(config-router)#do sh ip route | i 10.0.0.3[586] D EX 10.0.0.35/32 [170/3417088] via 172.30.96.1, 00:00:02, Multilink1 D EX 10.0.0.38/32 [170/3417088] via 172.30.96.1, 00:00:02, Multilink1 D EX 10.0.0.36/32 [170/3417088] via 172.30.96.1, 00:00:02, Multilink1 Any help would be greatly appreciated in making me understand this. Regards, Alef _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
