ok, tried the 2 OSPF and 2 EIGRP idea and it works and provides the required
results. Thanks John and Chris!
But let me ask this of the group.
Are there design questions here with using 4 routing processes??
I don't think I would have come up with this myself although I did do a
design once that used 2 OSPF processes.
But 4 could be "over the top"?? what do you think?
I can remember a time when it was strenuously considered bad design to use
OSPF virtual links. But then came a wave a companies either merging or
eating each other and then virtual links were used to join two area 0s.
OSPF virtual links are still (I think) frowned upon but are now more readily
accepted for certain situations.
This particular scenario I think is for 2 organizations sharing a network.
They pay for their own upstream circuit but are sharing a router. My first
thoughts were - buy a second router, each has only one network on the inside
and each can control their own upstream routing - but for some reason this
isn't an option.
Anyway, I'm going to do some load testing to see how hard the cpu is working
with 4 routing processes vs 2.
But comments on the design "theory" would be welcome.
Also, I'll try to get route-map re-distribution working, that might get it
down to 2 processes.
thanks again to the group!
Kevin Wigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Curtis Call" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin Wigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: Route filtering - somewhat long
> You might want to look into using a route map to specify to only allow
each
> network into one particular area. If you can't get that to work then you
> could try using different ospf processes on the router one for 1015 and
one
> for 1020, and once again use a route-map to specify which networks to
> allow. That way area 1015 will only have an LSA 5 for 142.226.20.0 and
> area 1020 will only have an
> LSA 5 for 142.226.10.0
>
>
>
> At 08:25 AM 3/23/01, you wrote:
> >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]
