yep, that's a twist on Curtis' post and I will add that to the game! (using
two eigrps as well as two ospf)
thanks
Kevin Wigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Route filtering - somewhat long
> Okay, I'm going to throw out a SWAG here, but it might violate the rules
> of the scenario.
>
> On routerE use two different OSPF processes. In process 1, add the
> network statement for the D-E link. In process 2, add the network
> statement for the C-E link. Do not add a network statement for the two
> networks on the ethernet interface.
>
> If you have a recent IOS version on E, use two separate eigrp
> processes, one for each network on the ethernet interface, which
> requires the ability to add a mask in the network statement.
>
> Assuming 144.226.10.0 is in eigrp 1, redistribute eigrp 1 to the
> appropriate ospf process and filter out 144.226.20.0. Redistribute
> eigrp 2 to the other ospf process and filter out 144.226.10.0.
>
> To be honest, I have NO idea if that will even work. It's still pretty
> early and I didn't really think about it too much. It's a bummer that I
> don't have five routers lying around or I'd set this up too.
>
> John
>
> >>> "Kevin Wigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/23/01 8:25:39 AM >>>
> Dear Group,
>
> I have an interesting scenario I'm trying to mock up in the lab and
> getting
> nowhere fast.
>
> I'm not good at ascii art so I'll try to describe the setup.
>
> Imagine a core network with 4 routers, put them in a square, from the
> top
> left clockwise, routerA, routerB, routerC, routerD.
>
> These routers are connected in a full mesh and OSPF is configured.
>
> Each router of course is in Area 0 but each router also has another
> area.
>
> routerA - 1005
> routerB - 1010
> routerC - 1015
> routerD - 1020
>
> There is a fifth router at the bottom - routerE, connecting to routerC
> and
> routerD with equal cost circuits using point-to-point addresses.
>
> These transit routes are configured into OSPF, each network into the
> same
> area as the core router where it terminates.
>
> On a third ( Ethernet ) interface on routerE there are two networks,
> one as
> primary and one as secondary. Let's use: primary 142.226.10.0 and
> secondary:
> 142.226.20.0
>
> Policy routing has been configured to allow the prime network out the
> routerE-routerD circuit and the secondary network has been configured
> to go
> out the routerE-routerC circuit.
>
> EIGRP has been configured for the networks on the inside of routerE and
> is
> redistributed into OSPF with no auto-summary.
>
> Now, when on either routerA or routerB, the inside routes are in the
> routing
> table as available through both routers.
>
> Objective.
>
> Have 142.226.10.0 only advertised out routerE-routerD
>
> and 142.226.20.0 only advertised out routerE-routerC
>
> Discussion.
>
> I have been reading madly about distribute lists and route-maps. It
> all
> reads so simply but I think this particular situation is interesting
> because
> of the two networks on one interface.
>
> OSPF cannot use a distribute list and use the interface command (would
> have
> been perfect).
>
> OSPF cannot filter incoming updates (which would have been great on
> routerC
> and routerD).
>
> On the face of it this "seems" so simple - but - I'm stuck.
>
> Any ideas welcome.
>
> tia
>
> Kevin Wigle
>
> Using access-lists on the egress ports don't seem to do it either.
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> 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]
