i do not see that as an issue unless you have multiple OSPF processes in the main routing table or in the same VRF. In the PE router, the separate OSPF processes do not interfere unless they are in the same routing table "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson " Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise"
________________________________ From: JM NGOK <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2-Lab17-Task6.3 OSPF distance command to prefer equal path route Thanks Olu for this clarification. That's why we're used distance for specific route. It's hard in a real environnement to have many ospf processes running for the same network. We have different ospf processes mostly at Provider Edge Routers side where VRFs stand. Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android ________________________________ From: Oluwagbenga Oyebande <[email protected]>; To: mark salmon <[email protected]>; CCIE OSL <[email protected]>; Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2-Lab17-Task6.3 OSPF distance command to prefer equal path route Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 5:57:52 PM This info is form the link you posted (Cisco IOS IP Routing: OSPF Command Reference). http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/iproute_ospf/command/reference/iro_osp1.html#wp1013195 distance ospf To define Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) route administrative distances based on route type, use the *distance ospf* command in router address family topology or router configuration mode. To restore the default value, use the *no* form of this command. . . . Usage Guidelines You must specify at least one of the keywords. *This command performs the same function as the distance command used with an access list. However, the distance ospfcommand allows you to set a distance for an entire group of routes, rather than a specific route that passes an access list.* ** A common reason to use the *distance ospf* command is when you have multiple OSPF processes with mutual redistribution, and you want to prefer internal routes from one over external routes from the other. Release 12.2(33)SRB If you plan to configure the Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) feature, you need to enter the *distance ospf *command in router address family topology configuration mode in order for this OSPF router configuration command to become topology-aware. On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, mark salmon <[email protected]> wrote: > I know that too. I suspect the behavior we see is due to that this > distance command you are using are not supposed to be used for OSPF. > > "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be > one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of > blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson > " Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise" > ------------------------------ > *From:* Oluwagbenga Oyebande <[email protected]> > *To:* mark salmon <[email protected]>; CCIE OSL < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, November 19, 2011 12:09 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2-Lab17-Task6.3 OSPF distance command > to prefer equal path route > > There is a "distance ospf" command specific to OSPF. > > There is also an IP routing protocol independent distance command, which > is not specific to OSPF. > > *distance* distance ip-address wildcard-mask [ip-standard-acl | > ip-extended-acl | access-list-name] > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_pi/command/iri-cr-a1.html#GUID-08F67FB3-0062-4888-9ED2-785D17B6B4ED > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:26 PM, mark salmon <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am aware of that. From CCO, notice there is no distance as shown below. > that is my point. > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/iproute_ospf/command/reference/iro_osp1.html#wp1013195 > > > "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be > one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of > blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson > " Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise" > > > ________________________________ > From: Pedram Zadeh <[email protected]> > To: Mark Salmon <[email protected]> > Cc: N. Max Pierson <[email protected]>; CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList < > [email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 8:24 AM > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2-Lab17-Task6.3 OSPF distance command to > prefer equal path route > > > Hi Mark, > > The command we are talking about is "distance <AD> > <router-id> <wildcard> [ACL]"; there is another one you mentioned and it is > "distance ospf <external | inter-area | intra-area>" which is not the > case here. :) > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Mark Salmon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >I did notice the only supported key words/options were distance ISPs > internal or > > > >External. Setting ospf by source only Is not in the 12.4 t command > reference > > > > > >On Nov 182011nic, at 3:09 PM, "N. Max Pierson" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Update to this thread ... > >> > >> I tried the same setup in RIP and EIGRP and it DOES actually select the > >> route where the distance is lower. So it seems that just OSPF is not > >> affected by the lower AD behavior. This is very strange indeed. > >> > >> /me heads over to the ietf website to read through 2328 and 1247. > >> > >> max > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedram Zadeh <[email protected] > >wrote: > >> > >>> Max, > >>> > >>> Many thanks. Makes sense. But still question is why same prefixes which > >>> are advertised from other router-id are getting same AD despite putting > >>> 0.0.0.0 as wild card in distance command? > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:55 PM, N. Max Pierson <[email protected] > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> My understanding is that AD doesn't mean a hill of beans once a > prefix is > >>>> installed into a routing protocol (unless of course a router had the > same > >>>> prefix from a "different" protocol). Each routing protocol does not > check > >>>> the distance in it's internal calculation once it has been passed a > prefix > >>>> from another peer running the same protocol. I could be completely > wrong, > >>>> but I bet the same would happen on a rip or eigrp configuration as > well. > >>>> I'll lab this up as soon as I get time, but to me AD only deals with > >>>> prefixes that are being compared for selection between protocols, not > >>>> internally within one. > >>>> > >>>> - > >>>> max > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Pedram Zadeh <[email protected] > >wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Nobody can shed light on this? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Pedram Zadeh < > [email protected] > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Here is the same explanation of this behavior. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://ieoc.com/forums/t/10010.aspx > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, James Roc <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> R5s rid is 136.10.5.5, R6 is 136.10.6.6. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I can modify the AD of routes based on these rids. Although, I've > >>>>> seen the > >>>>>>> source rid for a particular route change based on which router > sends > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> latest update. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> When using the distance command, is ospf, it always references the > >>>>> rid > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> the neighbour you are setting ad on. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I reckon applying an acl is defunct as you want the ad set on all > >>>>>>> routes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What's r5s rid > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- Sent from my HP Veer > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> On 17/11/2011 3:26 PM, James Roc <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I could not find any definitive description either. I have tried > >>>>> used > >>>>>>> RID > >>>>>>>> and also physical but only RID has any effect. I have also used > >>>>> with and > >>>>>>>> without an acl on the distance command. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here are some interesting captures from my testing showing the > >>>>> distance > >>>>>>>> command behaviour: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)#do sh run | s ospf > >>>>>>>> router ospf 1 > >>>>>>>> network 136.10.56.0 0.0.0.15 area 3 > >>>>>>>> distance 109 136.10.5.5 0.0.0.0 > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)# > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> #### show ip route ospf shows equal cost routes with default AD > due > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>> being sourced from R6, except for directly connected R5 sourced > >>>>> routes > >>>>>>>> #### > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)#do sh ip route ospf > >>>>>>>> 136.10.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 15 subnets, 4 masks > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.6.6/32 [110/2] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> *O IA 136.10.5.5/32 [109/2] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.4.4/32 [110/194] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [110/194] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> *O IA 136.10.2.2/32 [110/130] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> * [110/130] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.24.0/24 [110/193] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [110/193] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.40.0/24 [110/194] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [110/194] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.6/32 [110/1] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.5/32 [109/1] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.2/32 [110/129] via 136.10.56.6, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [110/129] via 136.10.56.5, 00:08:14, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)#do sh ip route 136.10.2.2 > >>>>>>>> Routing entry for 136.10.2.2/32 > >>>>>>>> Known via "ospf 1", *distance 110*, metric 130, type inter area > >>>>>>>> *Last update from* *136.10.56.6* on Vlan56, 00:08:28 ago > >>>>>>>> Routing Descriptor Blocks: > >>>>>>>> *136.10.56.6, from 136.10.6.6*, 00:08:28 ago, via Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Route metric is 130, traffic share count is 1 > >>>>>>>> * *136.10.56.5, from 136.10.5.5*, 00:08:28 ago, via Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Route metric is 130, traffic share count is 1 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ##### In order to generate updated LSA, shut s1/0 on R5 ###### > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)# > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: del 136.10.100.5/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [110/1] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: add 136.10.100.5/32 via 136.10.56.6, ospf metric > >>>>>>> [110/185] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: NET-RED 136.10.100.5/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: del 136.10.2.2/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [110/130] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: NET-RED 136.10.2.2/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: del 136.10.4.4/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [110/194] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: NET-RED 136.10.4.4/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: del 136.10.100.2/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>>>> [110/129] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: NET-RED 136.10.100.2/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: del 136.10.24.0/24 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [110/193] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: NET-RED 136.10.24.0/24 > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: del 136.10.40.0/24 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [110/194] > >>>>>>>> 03:07:56: RT: NET-RED 136.10.40.0/24 > >>>>>>>> 03:08:17: RT: del 136.10.100.5/32 via 136.10.56.6, ospf metric > >>>>>>> [109/185] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:17: RT: add 136.10.100.5/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [109/1] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:17: RT: NET-RED 136.10.100.5/32 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> #### Equal cost route has been removed #### > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)#do sh ip route ospf > >>>>>>>> 136.10.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 15 subnets, 4 masks > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.6.6/32 [110/2] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.5.5/32 [109/2] via 136.10.56.5, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.4.4/32 [110/194] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> *O IA 136.10.2.2/32 [110/130] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.24.0/24 [110/193] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.40.0/24 [110/194] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.6/32 [110/1] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.5/32 [109/1] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:05, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.2/32 [110/129] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:24, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)# > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> #### No shut s1/0 on R5, new LSA is generated and routes are now > >>>>> sourced > >>>>>>>> from R5, equal paths installed and AD from distance command is > >>>>> applied > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> *both > >>>>>>>> *R5 and R6 routes. Routes sourced from R6 remain default AD 110. > >>>>> ####### > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)# > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: add 136.10.100.2/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>>>> [109/129] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: NET-RED 136.10.100.2/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: add 136.10.4.4/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [109/194] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: NET-RED 136.10.4.4/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: add 136.10.2.2/32 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [109/130] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: NET-RED 136.10.2.2/32 > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: add 136.10.24.0/24 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [109/193] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: NET-RED 136.10.24.0/24 > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: add 136.10.40.0/24 via 136.10.56.5, ospf metric > >>>>> [109/194] > >>>>>>>> 03:08:37: RT: NET-RED 136.10.40.0/24 > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)# > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)#do sh ip route ospf > >>>>>>>> 136.10.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 15 subnets, 4 masks > >>>>>>>> *O IA 136.10.6.6/32 [110/2] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.5.5/32 [109/2] via 136.10.56.5, 00:09:45, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.4.4/32 [109/194] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [109/194] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:07, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> *O IA 136.10.2.2/32 [109/130] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> * [109/130] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:07, Vlan56* > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.24.0/24 [109/193] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [109/193] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:07, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.40.0/24 [109/194] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [109/194] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:07, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.6/32 [110/1] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.5/32 [109/1] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:27, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> O IA 136.10.100.2/32 [109/129] via 136.10.56.6, 00:09:45, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> [109/129] via 136.10.56.5, 00:00:07, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)#do sh ip route 136.10.2.2 > >>>>>>>> Routing entry for 136.10.2.2/32 > >>>>>>>> Known via "ospf 1", *distance 109*, metric 130, type inter area > >>>>>>>> Last update from *136.10.56.5* on Vlan56, 00:00:16 ago > >>>>>>>> Routing Descriptor Blocks: > >>>>>>>> * *136.10.56.6, from 136.10.6.6*, 00:09:54 ago, via Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Route metric is 130, traffic share count is 1 > >>>>>>>> *136.10.56.5, from 136.10.5.5,* 00:00:16 ago, via Vlan56 > >>>>>>>> Route metric is 130, traffic share count is 1 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cat2(config)# > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM, mark salmon <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That is an interesting one. I believe I was able to match what > >>>>> the DSG > >>>>>>>>> said. What source IP address did you use? the RID or the physical > >>>>> IP > >>>>>>>>> address? I do not remember what I used. Interestingly I cannot > >>>>> find a > >>>>>>>> good > >>>>>>>>> description on how to do it using the source IP address in the > >>>>> Docs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if > >>>>> there > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of > >>>>>>>>> blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson > >>>>>>>>> " Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise" > >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> *From:* James Roc <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> *To:* [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:51 PM > >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2-Lab17-Task6.3 OSPF distance > >>>>> command to > >>>>>>>>> prefer equal path route > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi All, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This task requires that "Cat2 will always prefer OSPF routes from > >>>>> R5" > >>>>>>>>> "without using the 'bandwidth' or 'ip ospf cost' commands." > >>>>>>>>> ____ > >>>>>>>>> | | > >>>>>>>>> R5 R6 > >>>>>>>>> |___| > >>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>> CAT2 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The DSG uses the distance command to reduce R5 sourced routes to > >>>>>>> AD109. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But as I understand, the 'distance' command cannot be used to > >>>>> select > >>>>>>>> routes > >>>>>>>>> within the same routing protocol as OSPF makes the SPF decision > >>>>> THEN > >>>>>>>> moves > >>>>>>>>> the route/s to the RIB. AD is then compared with other routing > >>>>>>> protocols > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>> checked for infinite value 255. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My testing shows that while the admin distance can be modified, > >>>>> both > >>>>>>>> routes > >>>>>>>>> still remain in the RIB as equal paths. The AD of the router that > >>>>>>>> sourced > >>>>>>>>> the route will be used for both equal path routes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Additionally, depending on who originated the last route update, > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> route > >>>>>>>>> source could be either R5 or R6. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Below thread shows a similar issue but the question remains, > given > >>>>>>>>> the constraints of the task and without actually filtering R6 > >>>>> routes > >>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>> giving them a 255 admin distance, is it possible to prefer the > >>>>> routes > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> R5? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>> James > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Roger RPF* rpf at bluemail.ch > >>>>>>>>> <ccie_rs% > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > 40onlinestudylist.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BOSL%20%7C%20CCIE_RS%5D%20Viol%202%20Section13%20Task%206.3%20OSPF%20distance&In-Reply-To=%3C001a01c9733e%24a9586940%24fc093bc0%24%40ch%3E > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *Sat Jan 10 11:15:27 EST 2009* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jared, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, I got it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But the task says: "Cat2 will always prefer OSPF routes from R5" > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I know I am very bad in reading between the lines, furthermore > >>>>> I'm not > >>>>>>>>> native english, but how do I have to understand that? To me, this > >>>>> task > >>>>>>>>> means > >>>>>>>>> that for all OSPF routes he learns from R5 and R6, he will prefer > >>>>> R5. > >>>>>>>>> That's why I was confused... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> regards > >>>>>>>>> Roger > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >>>>>>>>> Von: Jared Scrivener [mailto:jscrivener at ipexpert.com > >>>>>>>>> <http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs>] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 10. Januar 2009 17:07 > >>>>>>>>> An: 'Roger RPF'; ccie_rs at onlinestudylist.com > >>>>>>>>> <http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Betreff: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Viol 2 Section13 Task 6.3 OSPF > >>>>> distance > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Roger, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What you've described is EXACTLY how it should work. Quoting you: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "To me, this means from what I have seen, that the command > >>>>>>>>> distance 109 <router-id> > >>>>>>>>> changes only the admin distance of the "local routes" of that > >>>>>>> particular > >>>>>>>>> router with that router-id, not ALL routes we are getting from > >>>>> it." > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is the correct functionality. Remember that OSPF is a > >>>>> link-state > >>>>>>>>> protocol so each router advertises certain networks in its Type-1 > >>>>> (or > >>>>>>>>> Type-2) LSA's. What the distance command is doing is changing the > >>>>>>>> distance > >>>>>>>>> for R5's Type 1 and Type 2 LSA's here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That is the expected behaviour. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP > >>>>>>>>> Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > >>>>>>>>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > >>>>>>>>> Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > >>>>>>>>> Mailto: jscrivener at ipexpert.com > >>>>>>>>> <http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: Roger RPF [mailto:rpf at bluemail.ch > >>>>>>>>> <http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs>] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2009 5:51 AM > >>>>>>>>> To: jscrivener at ipexpert.com > >>>>>>>>> <http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs>; ccie_rs > at > >>>>>>>>> onlinestudylist.com > >>>>>>>>> <http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: AW: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Viol 2 Section13 Task 6.3 OSPF > >>>>> distance > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jared, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, I tried it, cleared also the OSPF process but it dit not > >>>>> really > >>>>>>>> help. > >>>>>>>>> Well, to be more specific, it made it worse than when I used the > >>>>>>>> router-id, > >>>>>>>>> at least, the "local R5" routes got the better distance: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> O 136.10.5.5/32 [109/2] via 136.10.56.5, 1d03h, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>>> O 136.10.25.0/30 [109/65] via 136.10.56.5, 1d03h, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>>> O 136.10.100.5/32 [109/1] via 136.10.56.5, 1d03h, Vlan56 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> but when I change the distance using the interface address, no > >>>>> route > >>>>>>>> gets > >>>>>>>>> the better distance. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To me, this means from what I have seen, that the command > >>>>>>>>> distance 109 <router-id> > >>>>>>>>> changes only the admin distance of the "local routes" of that > >>>>>>> particular > >>>>>>>>> router > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > -- > Olugbenga Oyebande > MD, DAIT > 234-803-302-5287 > http://www.dait-ng.com > Cisco Unified Network, VPN > DAIT Enterprise Network Servers > Broadband Internet Deployment & ISP Consultancy > > > > -- -- Olugbenga Oyebande MD, DAIT 234-803-302-5287 http://www.dait-ng.com Cisco Unified Network, VPN DAIT Enterprise Network Servers Broadband Internet Deployment & ISP Consultancy _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
