Zsombor Papp wrote:
>
> At 10:19 PM 7/16/2003 +0000, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
> >To be fair, I just checked, and Doyle didn't say anthing about
> >redistribution.
> >
> >The example simply shows configuring
> >
> >ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.82
> >
> >The text says that the router that has that config (which is
> running RIP by
> >the way) advertises the default to other RIP routers.
> >
> >It goes on to say:
> >
> >"After a default route is identified in the routing table,
> RIP, EIGRP, IGRP
> >will automatically advertise it."
> >
> >That's right, isn't it?
>
> I don't think so. That's what the original poster questioned
> and I agree
> with him. If it is right, then I take back everything.
RIP does automatically advertise a default route on my routers. Check this
out:
Albany#show ip route
Gateway of last resort is 10.10.0.2 to network 0.0.0.0
10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 10.10.0.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 is subnetted, 2 subnets
C 172.16.50.0 is directly connected, Ethernet1
C 172.16.20.0 is directly connected, TokenRing0
R* 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 [120/1] via 10.10.0.2, 00:00:06, Ethernet0
Albany learned that last route from another router that is configured for
RIP on their shared network and has a static route that points to another
router. I didn't configure redistribution.
But, alas, this didn't work on IGRP or EIGRP.
So if anyone has a good errata for Doyle, Volume I, is this in it?
Priscilla
>
> Well, except that about BGP, there I am 100% sure nothing
> happens
> automatically. :)
>
> > If it were OSPF you would need redistribution
>
> And a 'default-info orig' as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Zsombor
>
> >, but
> >not for those others?
> >
> >That was the original question. Sorry I confused it with the
> statement from
> >CertZone, which really meant to cover a different situation.
> :-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Priscilla
> >
> >John Neiberger wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>> Zsombor Papp 7/16/03 3:42:18 PM >>>
> > > >>I looked at that page in Doyle's book and I thought it's
> just
> > > a simple
> > > >>mistake, or maybe IOS changed since he wrote that, but
> after
> > > reading
> > > this:
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Handling of default routes varies from protocol to
> > > protocol. RIP, IGRP,
> > > >>>EIGRP and BGP automatically redistribute default routes
> > > while OSPF and
> > > >IS-IS
> > > >>>require you to explicitly advertise them with the
> > > default-information
> > > >>>originate statement in your router configuration."
> > > >>
> > > >>I start to think that these folks (Doyle included) have
> some
> > > basic problem
> > >
> > > >>with simple terminology.
> > > >
> > > >Actually this terminology might not be that simple after
> all,
> > > as it is not
> > >
> > > >clear whether something was redistributed unless it is
> > > advertised to peers.
> > >
> > > >So revised statement below.
> > > >
> > > >Also, I just realized that my above sentence sounds less
> > > respectful than I
> > >
> > > >intended, so I thought I would mention that I learnt a lot
> > > from "Routing
> > > >TCP/IP" and it's probably the most useful networking book
> I've
> > > ever read.
> > > >
> > > >> There is no way "BGP automatically redistributes default
> > > routes".
> > > >> However it's true that OSPF and ISIS don't advertise the
> > > default route
> > > >> even if it's redistributed into them, unless
> > > 'default-information
> > > >> originate' is specified.
> > > >>
> > > >>So the statement should be something like "RIP, IGRP,
> EIGRP
> > > and BGP
> > > >>automatically advertise default routes that are
> redistributed
> > > into them,
> > > >>while OSPF and ISIS require the 'default-information
> > > originate'
> > > >>statement." At least I hope that this is a true
> statement...
> > > :)
> > > >
> > > >Probably this one is better:
> > > >
> > > >"RIP, IGRP, EIGRP and BGP automatically accept default
> routes
> > > that are
> > > >redistributed into them, while OSPF and ISIS silently
> reject
> > > the
> > > >redistributed default route unless 'default-information
> > > originate' is
> > > >configured."
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >Zsombor
> > >
> > > Actually, I think I wrote that line and it is a little
> > > confusing, perhaps. I
> > > took great care to be specific with my terminology but it's
> > > easy to slip
> > > back into bad habits from time to time. Many people use
> terms
> > > in a haphazard
> > > way (like redistribute, advertise, originate, export,
> import,
> > > accept)
> > > without fully considering the implications of using one term
> > > over another.
> > > With Howard's approval perhaps we should have CZ update that
> > > line with your
> > > edited version! I like your version better, anyway. :-)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
>
>
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72445&t=72211
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
