On (2012-12-10 17:41 +0400), Murat Kaipov wrote: I've not yet seen justified reason for multiple OSPF process, people try to use it like VRF or like BGP peer-group, but it does not work like that. It just adds confusion and complexity.
Proper way to set preference between processes is to use admin-distance. Sometimes OSPF is used (note this is not example of justified reason) as one process to CE<->PE and one process to CE<->LAN. Then you'd in primary CE prefer CE<->PE process and backup CE would prefer CE<->LAN process. But I'd really recommend getting rid of two OSPF processes, unless you have very clear explanation why you must have it. > Hello guys. > > I have an issue on my ME3800 with redistributing ospf process into another > ospf. Not all routes appears on second ospf process. > > This is my config: > > > > router ospf 1 > > router-id 172.24.203.241 > > no auto-cost > > area 197 stub > > redistribute static subnets route-map STATIC-OSPF1 > > redistribute ospf 65000 subnets > > redistribute bgp 65000 > > passive-interface default > > no passive-interface Vlan42 > > no passive-interface Vlan63 > > no passive-interface Vlan512 > > no passive-interface Vlan901 > > no passive-interface Vlan1025 > > no passive-interface Vlan3327 > > no passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/17 > > no passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/21 > > no passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/24 > > default-metric 100 > > bfd all-interfaces > > > > router ospf 65000 > > no auto-cost > > redistribute ospf 1 subnets route-map OSPF1-OSPF65000 > > passive-interface default > > no passive-interface Vlan101 > > no passive-interface Vlan401 > > > > ip route 172.24.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.24.11.97 > > > > route-map STATIC-OSPF1 permit 10 > > match ip address prefix-list GLOBAL-VrfPGW-PRIMARY > > set metric 100 > > > > route-map OSPF1-OSPF65000 permit 10 > > match ip address prefix-list OSPF1-OSPF65000 > > set metric 50 > > > > ip prefix-list GLOBAL-VrfPGW-PRIMARY seq 10 permit 172.24.0.0/16 > > ip prefix-list OSPF1-OSPF65000 seq 5 permit 172.24.0.0/16 > > > > So in first ospf process we see route 172.24.0.0 which was redistributed > from static. > > sho ip ospf 1 database > > Type-5 AS External Link States > > > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Tag > > 172.24.0.0 172.24.203.241 215 0x800001CF 0x00BBF5 0 > > 172.24.17.224 172.24.203.243 1966 0x80000711 0x00D08C 0 > > 172.24.200.2 172.24.200.206 1608 0x800023BD 0x004193 0 > > 172.24.200.24 172.24.200.204 1256 0x80007E94 0x00860F 0 > > 172.24.200.24 172.24.200.205 1418 0x80007E97 0x007A17 0 > > 172.24.201.32 172.24.203.243 1966 0x80000F27 0x002423 0 > > 172.24.202.48 172.24.203.241 970 0x80000003 0x004DC5 0 > > 172.24.202.64 172.24.203.241 970 0x80000003 0x00AC56 0 > > 172.24.203.129 172.24.203.241 970 0x80000003 0x003F7A 0 > > > > In second ospf process we don't see route to 172.24.0.0. > > sho ip ospf 65000 database > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Tag > > 172.24.17.0 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00CC57 0 > > 172.24.17.32 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x008B78 0 > > 172.24.17.64 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00AA29 0 > > 172.24.17.80 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x000AB9 0 > > 172.24.17.96 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00B1F5 0 > > 172.24.17.100 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00891A 0 > > 172.24.17.104 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00495A 0 > > 172.24.17.128 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00C7DB 0 > > 172.24.17.160 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x0086FC 0 > > 172.24.17.192 172.24.203.22 53 0x80000002 0x00A5AD 0 > > > > Have any ideas? > > B.R. > > Murat Kaipov > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
