At 12:00 PM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>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.
You would probably have to tinker with the k values using the metric
weights command, eh?
If you use the default k values, the composite metric is min bandwidth +
the sum of delays, if I remember correctly..
Don't work on this tonight! It's almost the holiday! &;-)
Priscilla
>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
________________________
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]
