Chuck,
OHHHHH YESSSSS!! It's going to be a good day! LOL
Your analysis of the serial/ethernet is right on: this is exactly what I
had in mind. This is actually an idea a friend of mine came up with to link
EIGRP over disparate and wildly varying routing protocols: he came up with
3 ideas, I came up with 3 ideas, and then we both got way interested in
this tunnel idea because it was so interesting. We have been kicking it
around for about a day, but are still in the thinking stage.
At this point, I believe that our tunnel end points would most likely be the
ethernets; however, we have not set that in concrete yet. One of the
goals is to keep it as automated as possible, and to use static routes as
little as possible. Having said that, in response to your question, I don't
believe we can have either OSPF or BGP to advertise the tunnel network at
all as it may cause confusion. We can have OSPF and BGP advertise the
tunnel end point interfaces; and leave the tunnel network in EIGRP. EIGRP
routes will get redistributed into BGP and OSPF; there may be some
ramifications to that we have not thought out.
Many thanks to all who wrote; I'll share our conclusions (whether technical
or not;) if anyone is interested.
Charles
""Chuck Larrieu"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
005e01c04df1$87901e00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:005e01c04df1$87901e00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You know, Charles, I've been pondering this setup for a while now. ( See -
> you did too get me after all! :-> )
>
> Now I already posted the wisecrack about the mess in the middle, and
whether
> or not you would even be able to get IP connectivity end to end here.
>
> RouterA: ethernet EIGRP, serial=OSPF
> RouterB: serial1= OSPF, serial2=BGP
> RouterC: serial 1=BGP, serial2=OSPF
> RouterD: serial1=OSPF, ethernet=EIGRP
>
> As an intellectual exercise, I'm sure many of us can put together some
> configurations that work. The redistribution should not be al that bad,
> albeit a bit unusual.
>
> I'm wondering, though, about that BGP piece in the middle. Gonna use
static
> routes from B to C?
>
> Also - is my concept of the layout correct? Are your tunnel end points
going
> to be the two ethernet interfaces?
>
> I'm just wondering about the mechanics here.
>
> Damn you, Charles, now you done it! You are indeed an evil one :->
>
> Chuck
>
> Cthulu's question corner:
>
> Given:
>
> EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1
>
>
> I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing
> update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share
a
> common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture
then
> becomes:
>
> EIGRP1 RTRA <---tunnel---> RTRD EIGRP1
>
> The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able
> to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this
> tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will
be
> in a different subnet). I don't have my rack online to test this out,
so
> would appreciate any comments.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
>
> Flames to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
