First edition, correct?
There is a website, http://www.netcordia.com/advip-first-edition/bugs1.html
where ostensibly there are bug reports listed. I don't find yours in
particular - most of them appear to be cosmetic things such as typeface and
missing lines.
In looking over the configurations in the second edition, and the first, I
am wondering about the distribute list behaviour
Recall that the access-list reads "permit 162.16.0.0 0.0.255.255" What I am
wondering is if, because that list permits a very broad network range, if at
the time of redistribution Cisco creates this null route. Recall that you
have the redistribution happening with the "subnets" switch. The OSPF
process sees 162.16.a.a, 162.16.b.b, and knows that anything in the
162.16.forever range is permitted.
Therefore it creates the null route in case any traffic shows up for subnets
other than those which are coming in.
I wonder, Nigel, if you have a moment to test this:
Access-list 1 permit 162.16.1.192 0.0.0.3
Access-list 1 permit 162.16.1.32 0.0.0.31
Access-list 1 deny any
i.e. redistribute the specific subnets that are configured on Tokyo
interfaces, and see what happens.
Another variation might be doing the redistribute without the subnets
switch. I'll see if I can take a look a little later. I have some other
labs to finish up first.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Redistribution - Slattery/Burton more questions..?
All,
I'm still working through the Slattery/Burton ex. #11, pg. 328-338 and
I'm still trying to get a fix on some of the things I'm seeing. My fist
concern was with the summary route that is shown in the London router for
162.16.0.0/16(pg. 333). In looking at the London configs I see no summary
route defined under the ospf 200 process that would create the above
mentioned summary route in the routing table. I figured this was either a
mis-print or a lack thereof which is fine.
However, when you look at the routing table of the Tokyo router(pg. 330)
there is a eigrp external to the 162.16.0.0/16 network. With the existing
configuration I do get this route as noted but once the OSPF adjacency
between london and tokyo achieves the full state the OSPF summary for the
162.16.0.0/16 replaces the eigrp external route in Tokyo because of the
lower AD of OSPF(as it should).
My other thoughts also goto the different techniques used to pass the
summarized routes to external routing domains. In ex. #10 the example made
use of the interface specific command;
"ip summary-address eigrp <process-id> <summarized network & mask>
to summarize the OSPF network into the EIGRP routing domain, but in ex.#11
it was done through the use of a redistributed summary route.
I just wanted to know if there are any clear guildlines in use when
summarized routes are proprogated into external routing domains....
TIA
Nigel...
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
