I agree with Chuck. However, the default coefficient (K) values cause
the effects of load to be ignored. So it worked and noone noticed the
minor error until you scrutinized the config.
Cendant? I just taught a CIT class in NYC to two folks from there...
Marty Adkins Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mentor Technologies Phone: 410-280-8840 x3006
275 West Street, Plaza 70 WWW: http://www.mentortech.com
Annapolis, MD 21401 Cisco CCIE #1289
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.
>
> 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]
