Priscilla, off line I got a reply that show ip protocol reports that the K
values are what one would expect, even with the settings what they are. In
other words, according to the original poster, he looked and saw K1 and K3 =
1 and K2,4,and 5 =0
I'm curious myself, now. I can't research it right now, but somewhere I have
this idea that the metrics are not effected by the redistribute route metric
command. Changes in metric values have to be done another way.
Bandwidth delay load reliability MTU. Gotta remember that. And yes I see
that in one of the tables that 255 is 100% reliable. Again, it appears from
what Jim said that these values make no difference in the metric as reported
in the show ip protocol output.
In his book Advanced IP routing in Cisco Networks, Slattery uses many
examples of the redistribution metric. In each case it appears that he tries
to match the bandwidth, but uses values of 100, 255,1 and 1500 for all other
places
I should have a bit of time tonight, and I will set up a quick&dirty lab and
experiment.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 11:33 AM
To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes
Subject: RE: Redistribution
At 10:14 AM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>Probably the person who did it originally did not understand how the
metrics
>should be set up.
>
>Reliability goes low to high. Lower is more reliable.
You meant to say load, didn't you?
255 load means a fully-loaded network, which is generally a bad thing. A
low load is good.
255 reliability means 100% reliability, which is a good thing. A low
reliability value is bad.
But when redistributing, I could see setting load high to make the
redistributed route less favorable. What's a bit confusing is that they
didn't set the reliability low, which would have been logical. So your
guess that they were confused seems likely!
If my brain is addled by PPP (Pumpkin Pie Preparation), forgive me. Gotta
get back to it now.
Priscilla
>Do a show ip protocol and look at the K values that are reported. I'm
>curious as to what they might show.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>James Haynes
>Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 9:34 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Redistribution
>
>Hi all,
>
>I recently took a job at a new company and one of the first tasks I've been
>given is to go over the configuration and documentation of one of the WANs.
>While going thru the router config's I have found some redistribution
>commands that are, to me, not making sense. They are:
>
>router eigrp 113
> redistribute static metric 1544 100 255 255 1500
> redistribute rip metric 1544 100 255 255 1500 route-map rip-to-eigrp
>
>
>Now, these are not difficult commands in and of themselves and are readily
>understandable. The thing that has me puzzeled is the value of the metric
>for Load. Here the values for load are equal to 255. This to my
>understanding represents a fully loaded route. Am I correct? If so, why
>would one want to do that? If I'm not correct what is the correct
>interpretation of the above values.
>
>
>_________________________________
>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]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
