(REPOST) I've been fighting with one of my practice labs the last couple of days. The problem is one of those OSPF to IGRP redistribution with a twist. The IGRP domain is /28. So how to get those shorter /24 prefixes advertised. Oh yeah, you can't use the default-network command to create an IGRP default route.
So let me offer this possibility. IP local policy route-map the route map then goes something like this: route-map igrp-default permit 10 set default interface [whatever the interface is] I also suspect that set ip default next-hop x.x.x.x works also, but at the time I was testing I hadn't thought through all the implications, and my test failed. In any case, the local policy would have to be implemented on all routers in the IGRP domain. A bit of planning, then, is required. I found out something else that was interesting. Local policy packets seem to have a particular way they are constructed. the first time I looked at my debug ip packet, the source address was one of my loopback addresses, which I was not advertising under IGRP. So of course my pings failed, because the distant end did not have a route back. So I deleted the loopback, tried again, and this time the source address was a LAN interface, this too not advertised under IGRP. I am assuming that Cisco has a hierarchy of interfaces. Usually a ping is sourced at the interface out which the packets are headed. But for local policy, it was different. Any case, I am offering these observations for consideration. Wish I hadn't turned my routers off last night. Or I could gather some screen shots. Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29021&t=29021 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
