Well each additional process will add strain to the CPU of the router, in
general I would try to avoid it, if there is anyway to limit the number of
processes (ie only run one EIGRP process or one OSPF process) then I would
do so. However, in this case, this might be your best bet.
At 10:08 AM 3/23/01, you wrote:
>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]
