Thanks Zsombor, I think the problem was bgp reditribute-internal did not work properly for me. Then i used network command to include those routes i want to redistribute, then it worked for me. So i jumped into an assumption that only igp originated route is redistributed.
anyway, after fiddling around, redistribute internal works for me and there is no more problem. Thanks for your help Paul Zsombor Papp wrote: > At 11:32 AM 6/20/2003 +0000, paul dong so wrote: > >>More information to this. >> >>r4 - eigrp - r10 - bgp- >> >>now i have tried replace eigrp with rip v2, the same problem. I want to >>redistribute bgp to egrip on r10. those routes learned via redistribute >>connected on bgp, marked with origin code ? , can not be redistribute to >>eigrp, >> > > Specifically which ones? It appears to me that 4 routes get redistributed > into EIGRP and all of them had incomplete origin. Here is a mix of your own > 'show ip bgp' and 'show ip eigrp topo' outputs: > > *> 192.168.3.0 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? > P 192.168.3.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 > via Redistributed (45970176/0) > > *> 192.168.5.0 200.200.200.5 0 2 ? > P 192.168.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 > via Redistributed (45970176/0) > > *> 192.168.38.0 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? > P 192.168.38.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 > via Redistributed (45970176/0) > > *> 192.168.55.0 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? > P 192.168.55.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 > via Redistributed (45970176/0) > > I assume you are aware that redistributing BGP into EIGRP is not a > particularly good idea, so I take this is some kind of exercise. If so, > perhaps you could try to simplify the scenario a bit, like have only 1 BGP > peer on R10, don't redistribute connected routes into EIGRP, etc, and see > if you have only 2 BGP routes, one incomplete and one IGP origin, then > those make it into EIGRP (I don't see any reason why they wouldn't). When > you are there, then you can start adding back the complexity to see what > caused the breakage. > > Thanks, > > Zsombor > > >> only those routes marked with origin code i are passed to eigrp, >>why? I don't see any reason incomplete routes can not be redistribute to >>other protocols. >> >>configuration is like this: >> >>R10: >>router eigrp 1 >> redistribute connected >> redistribute bgp 1 route-map bgp2eigrp >> network 200.200.200.8 0.0.0.3 >> default-metric 56 1000 255 1 1500 >> no auto-summary >> no eigrp log-neighbor-changes >>! >>router bgp 1 >> no synchronization >> bgp redistribute-internal >> bgp router-id 192.168.10.10 >> bgp log-neighbor-changes >> redistribute connected route-map connect2bgp >> neighbor 192.168.0.2 remote-as 1 >> neighbor 192.168.0.2 route-reflector-client >> neighbor 192.168.0.2 send-community >> neighbor 192.168.16.2 remote-as 1 >> neighbor 192.168.16.2 route-reflector-client >> neighbor 200.200.200.5 remote-as 2 >> neighbor 200.200.200.5 password test >> neighbor 200.200.200.5 remove-private-AS >> no auto-summary >> >>route-map bgp2eigrp, permit, sequence 10 >> Match clauses: >> Set clauses: >> tag 50 >> Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes >> >>r10#sh ip bgp >>BGP table version is 38, local router ID is 192.168.10.10 >>Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - >>internal >>Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete >> >> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path >>*> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 32768 ? >>* i 192.168.0.2 0 100 0 i >>*>i192.168.1.0 200.200.200.1 1 100 0 ? >>*> 192.168.3.0 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? >>*> 192.168.5.0 200.200.200.5 0 2 ? >>*>i192.168.6.0 192.168.16.2 0 100 0 i >>*>i192.168.7.0 192.168.0.2 0 100 0 ? >>*> 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.0 0 32768 ? >>*>i192.168.11.0 200.200.200.1 1 100 0 ? >>*> 192.168.16.0 0.0.0.0 0 32768 ? >>* i 192.168.16.2 0 100 0 i >>*>i192.168.22.0 200.200.200.1 1 100 0 ? >>*>i192.168.33.0 200.200.200.1 1 100 0 ? >>*> 192.168.38.0 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? >>*> 192.168.55.0 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? >>*>i192.168.70.0 192.168.0.2 0 100 0 ? >>*>i200.200.27.0 192.168.0.2 0 100 0 ? >>*>i200.200.27.2/32 192.168.0.2 0 100 0 ? >> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path >>*>i200.200.200.0 192.168.16.2 0 100 0 ? >>*> 200.200.200.4/30 0.0.0.0 0 32768 ? >>* 200.200.200.5 0 0 2 ? >>*> 200.200.200.8/30 0.0.0.0 0 32768 ? >>* 200.200.200.12/30 >> 200.200.200.5 0 2 ? >>*>i 192.168.0.2 0 100 0 ? >> >>r10# sh ip eigrp topology >>IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(192.168.10.10) >> >>Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply, >> r - reply Status, s - sia Status >> >>P 192.168.40.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2297856 >> via 200.200.200.9 (2297856/128256), Serial0.105 >>P 192.168.38.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 >> via Redistributed (45970176/0) >>P 192.168.55.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 >> via Redistributed (45970176/0) >>P 192.168.10.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256 >> via Rconnected (128256/0) >>P 192.168.0.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2169856 >> via Rconnected (2169856/0) >>P 192.168.3.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 >> via Redistributed (45970176/0) >>P 192.168.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2297856 >> via 200.200.200.9 (2297856/128256), Serial0.105 >>P 192.168.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 45970176, tag is 50 >> via Redistributed (45970176/0) >>P 192.168.16.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2169856 >> via Rconnected (2169856/0) >> >>Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply, >> r - reply Status, s - sia Status >> >>P 200.200.200.8/30, 1 successors, FD is 2169856 >> via Connected, Serial0.105 >>P 200.200.200.4/30, 1 successors, FD is 2169856 >> via Rconnected (2169856/0) >> >> >> >>R4: >> >>router eigrp 1 >> network 192.168.4.0 >> network 192.168.40.0 >> network 200.200.200.8 0.0.0.3 >> no auto-summary >> no eigrp log-neighbor-changes >>! >>r4#sh ip eigrp topology >>IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(192.168.40.1) >> >>Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply, >> r - reply Status, s - sia Status >> >>P 192.168.40.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256 >> via Connected, Loopback1 >>P 192.168.38.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 46482176, tag is 2 >> via 200.200.200.10 (46482176/45970176), Serial0 >>P 192.168.55.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 46482176, tag is 2 >> via 200.200.200.10 (46482176/45970176), Serial0 >>P 192.168.10.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2297856 >> via 200.200.200.10 (2297856/128256), Serial0 >>P 192.168.0.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2681856 >> via 200.200.200.10 (2681856/2169856), Serial0 >>P 192.168.3.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 46482176, tag is 2 >> via 200.200.200.10 (46482176/45970176), Serial0 >>P 192.168.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256 >> via Connected, Loopback0 >>P 192.168.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 46482176, tag is 2 >> via 200.200.200.10 (46482176/45970176), Serial0 >>P 192.168.16.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2681856 >> via 200.200.200.10 (2681856/2169856), Serial0 >> >>Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply, >> r - reply Status, s - sia Status >> >>P 200.200.200.8/30, 1 successors, FD is 2169856 >> via Connected, Serial0 >>P 200.200.200.4/30, 1 successors, FD is 2681856 >> via 200.200.200.10 (2681856/2169856), Serial0 >>r4# >> >> >>Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >>paul dong so wrote: >> >> >>>Hi, >>>Can some one pls explain to me, when redistribute bgp to rip, if the >>>route originated as incomplete (as via redistribute only) will it be >>>redistribute to rip? >>> >>>My test shows me the bgp route learned via redistribute won't be >>>advertised to rip, only when i include it in networks statement. The >>>route appears in "show ip bgp" ok. >>> >>>thanks >>> >>>Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71051&t=70970 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
