You know you are probobaly right. Maybe RIP only enters the best route into the routing table? I'm not entirely sure. I know OSPF will enter all routes into the routing table regardless, and I know BGP will only enter the best route into the routing table. Might want to check on Cisco's website? I don't have my lab setup with duplicate routes using RIP, IGRP or EIGRP so I'm not entirely sure. You know maybe if we sent these out to the entire group someone on there could help clear this up for us?
Gotta get outta here and start my holiday. Happy Independance Day everyone! God Bless America! >>>Brian >From: "Morgan Hansen" >To: "'Brian Lodwick'" >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:39:51 +0200 > >Hmm... Well? I belive you, no question there! Id trust you with my life >the way I see it now, but... > >K, heres all of my notes, and one of the four lines below should tell me >which one who is not going to be entred into the receiving router... > > >Router_B#show ip route >Codes: C-connected,s-static,I-IGRP,R-RIP,M-Mobile,B-BGP,D- EIGRP,EIGRP >external,O-OSPF,IA-OSPFinter area,EI-OSPF external type 1,E2-OSPF >external type 2, E-EGP,i-IS-IS,L1-IS-IS level- 1,L2-IS-IS >level-2,*-candidate default,U-per-user static route >Gateway of last resort is not set R 192.168.8.0/24 [120/1] via >192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 >C 192.168.9.0/24 is directly connected, Serial 1 >R 192.168.10.0/24 [120/7] via 192.168.9.1, 00:00:02, Serial1 >R 192.168.11.0/24 [120/7] via 192.168.9.1, 00:00:03, Serial1 >C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0 >C 192.168.2.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0 >R 192.168.3.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 >R 192.168.4.0/24 [120/15] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 >R 192.168.5.0/24 [120/15] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 >R 192.168.6.0/24 [120/15] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 >R 192.168.7.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 > >And looking at these lines, given the following 4 lines below - >One of these lines will be the one NOT being entred into the receiving >router. As you know, I started out thinking it was the [120/5] one, but >now im thinking more [120/1] >The only thing I know for certain is that by looking at these lines from >the show ip route command, I should be able to determine which of these >4 lines (below) not being entred into the receiving router. What do you >make of all this? >I must be missing something? > >Should it be this one? > >R 192.168.3.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 > >Or; > >R 192.168.11.0/24 [120/7] via 192.168.9.1, 00:00:03, Serial1 > >Or; > >C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0 > >Or maybe; > >R 192.168.5.0/24 [120/15] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0 > >I don't know? And if it's the [120/1] one, then why? Wow, I find this >really hard to see. > >Morgan >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Brian Lodwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 4. juli 2002 01:19 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > >Well, the router should receive all of the routes and add them all to >the >routing table. Of these routes it selects the best path(s), and when it >receives a packet destined for that destination it routes it via the >best >path(s). > >For example take a look at this routing table and see the routes to the >150.10.20.0 network. > >r5#ip >Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP > D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area > N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 > E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP > i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS >inter >area > * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR > P - periodic downloaded static route > >Gateway of last resort is not set > > 55.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets >C 55.55.55.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0 >O E2 200.200.100.0/24 [110/20] via 150.10.50.2, 00:00:13, Serial0 >O E2 200.100.100.0/24 [110/20] via 150.10.60.6, 00:00:13, Serial1.1 >B 198.5.51.0/24 [200/0] via 150.10.60.6, 02:08:21 >O E2 10.0.0.0/8 [110/20] via 150.10.60.6, 00:00:13, Serial1.1 >C 200.150.150.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback1 >B 198.5.53.0/24 [200/0] via 150.10.60.6, 02:08:21 >B 198.6.53.0/24 [200/0] via 150.10.50.2, 02:22:29 >B 198.5.52.0/24 [200/0] via 150.10.60.6, 02:08:22 >B 198.5.54.0/24 [200/0] via 150.10.60.6, 02:08:22 > 150.10.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 17 subnets, 5 masks >O E2 150.10.30.0/29 [110/20] via 150.10.10.3, 00:00:14, Serial1.2 >O 150.10.20.0/25 [110/74] via 150.10.10.1, 00:00:15, Serial1.2 >O IA 150.10.20.0/24 [110/74] via 150.10.10.3, 00:00:15, Serial1.2 >O 150.10.10.0/24 is a summary, 02:08:28, Null0 >C 150.10.10.0/28 is directly connected, Serial1.2 >I 150.10.4.0/24 [100/8976] via 150.10.40.4, 00:01:02, Serial1.3 >C 150.10.5.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0 >O 150.10.6.0/24 [110/65] via 150.10.60.6, 02:08:29, Serial1.1 >O IA 150.10.1.0/24 [110/75] via 150.10.10.3, 00:00:15, Serial1.2 >O 150.10.2.0/24 [110/65] via 150.10.50.2, 00:13:53, Serial0 >O IA 150.10.3.0/24 [110/65] via 150.10.10.3, 00:00:15, Serial1.2 >C 150.10.60.0/24 is directly connected, Serial1.1 >C 150.10.50.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0 >I 150.10.45.0/24 [100/8539] via 150.10.40.4, 00:01:02, Serial1.3 >C 150.10.40.0/24 is directly connected, Serial1.3 >O 150.10.65.0/24 is a summary, 02:08:28, Null0 >O 150.10.65.0/30 [110/1849] via 150.10.60.6, 02:08:29, Serial1.1 >B 198.6.48.0/20 [200/0] via 150.10.50.2, 02:22:32 > >I think it's the same for all protocols except for BGP, but maybe I'm >wrong? > > >>>Brian > > > >From: "Morgan Hansen" > >To: "'Brian Lodwick'" > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:02:58 +0200 > > > >AH!! YEEEES :) I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY THIS, BUT BOY AM I GLAD MY > >NOTES ARE WRONG :) haha... Thanx Brian! > > > >Ok, new things keep popping up in my mind as I think about this... > >Ok, now I know that in fact the 1 IS the lower of the 3, and therfore > >will NOT be entred into the routing table of the receiving router. > > > >My question now is... Why wont it be entred into its routing table? > >I would have guessed that the higher the entry was, like the [120/7] > >which is the highest in my example where the one not being entred into > >the receiving router. Cause...? > > > >Wouldn't the receiving router like to know which router that is the > >nearest one? The 120/1? Only 1 hops away right? > > > >Morgan > >Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Brian Lodwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: 4. juli 2002 00:56 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > >Yes, it does look like your notes are wrong. > >1 is the best, 5 is the next best, and 7 is the worst. > > > > >>>Brian > > > > > > >From: "Morgan Hansen" > > >To: "'Brian Lodwick'" > > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:51:22 +0200 > > > > > >Brian, im sorry... But now you really confused me here?! > > >I guess you allready figured out that im no master of techtronics as > >off > > >now ;) And youre talking waaaay beond me now :( > > > > > >But, in my exampel... How could the [120/5] be called the one with >the > > >"lowest" metric? I don't get it? Don't you think my notes are wrong? > > >That it in fact should say: > > > > > >Because of these lines, > > > > > >[120/1] > > >[120/7] > > >[120/5] > > > > > >The [120/1] being the one with the lowest metric/hop (1), it will not > >be > > >shared with the neighbor. > > > > > > > > >I mean, if the [120/5] is the correct one (being in middle of the >three > > >(1-7-5) Can't be correct now can it?? > > > > > > > > > > > >Auch, it hurts - It really does :( D**n! Why does it have to be so >hard > > >:(? > > > > > >Morgan > > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Brian Lodwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >Sent: 4. juli 2002 00:41 > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > > > >Well I am figuring you are using RIP on the router you are using >since > > >the > > >admin is 120 so think RIP uses hop count as a metric. 1 = 1 hop, 15 = > >15 > > > > > >hops and 16 = unreachable. > > >In say OSPF the metric is cost. Cost is calculated by taking > > >bandwidth/10^8. > > >(FastE = 10, GigE = 1) > > > > > >Just figure lower = better when dealing with metrics exept in BGP >which > > >has > > >it's own little table. It picks the best route to a certain >destination > > >from > > >that table and will only enter the best route into the regular >routing > > >table > > >(unless you use the maximum-paths command). > > > > > > >>>Brian > > > > > > > > > >From: "Morgan Hansen" > > > >To: "'Brian Lodwick'" > > > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:31:32 +0200 > > > > > > > >Sorry for asking so many questions here Brian, but right now I >trust > > >you > > > >much more! Than I trust myself, so? > > > > > > > >Thanx, now I know that the 15 out of the [120/15] descirbes the > >metric. > > > >Now, is it so, that the higher this number is (in this case the > >number > > > >15) the lower we say that it is?? Im confused like nothing right >now, > > >so > > > >please excuse me... :( Cause, on one of my notes from school I have > > > >written that 3 lines looking like this (the admin, and metric that > >is) > > > > > > > >[120/1] > > > >[120/7] > > > >[120/5] > > > > > > > >And because of these lines, I have made a note here that this one; > > > >[120/5] will not be enterd into the routing table of the receiving > > > >router, because it has the "lowest" metric? But, I would assume it > > >would > > > >be the [120/1] that had the lowest metric (1) right? > > > > > > > >I don't get it? Are my notes wrong? (Def could be, their quite old) > > > > > > > >Morgan > > > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Brian Lodwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: 4. juli 2002 00:10 > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > > > > > >I was just kidding around. > > > > > > > >This part [120/15] > > > >120 is the admin distance > > > >15 is the metric. > > > > > > > > >>>Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Morgan Hansen" > > > > >To: "'Brian Lodwick'" > > > > >Subject: RE: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > > >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:03:17 +0200 > > > > > > > > > >Brian, could i possibly ask you one more "stupid" question? > > > > > > > > > >If one does, say a show ip route and one of the lines that show >up > > > >looks > > > > >something like this: > > > > > > > > > >"192.168.5.0/24 [120/15] via 192.168.2.2, 00:00:10, Serial0" > > > > > > > > > >Could you please help me figure out where in this line I would >find > > >the > > > > >metric, so that I would know if it would be shared by a >neighboring > > > > >router or not? > > > > >What am I supposed to look for in a line like this? Once again im > > > > >reading the Odom book, but it doesn't say, just shows up with >allot > > >of > > > > >configuration lines. > > > > > > > > > >Best, > > > > >Morgan > > > > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > > >From: Brian Lodwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > >Sent: 3. juli 2002 23:34 > > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >Subject: Re: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > > > > > > > >are you crazy? > > > > >Like Cisco is going to select IETF over Cisco encapsulation as >the > > > > >default > > > > >riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht. > > > > > > > > > >2 types of Frame-Relay encapsulations on a Cisco router Cisco and > > >IETF. > > > > >Cisco is proprietary. Use IETF encapsulation if connecting to > > >anything > > > > >not > > > > >Cisco. > > > > > > > > > > >>>Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Morgan Hansen" > > > > > >Reply-To: "Morgan Hansen" > > > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >Subject: IETF encapsulation [7:48044] > > > > > >Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 21:03:51 GMT > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi. > > > > > > > > > > > >Mmm... Reading in Wendel Odoms 640-607 studying book here it > >says: > > > > > > > > > > > >"For example, if one router is not a Cisco router and does not > > > >support > > > > > >Cisco encapsulation, IETF encapsulation is required". > > > > > > > > > > > >But, what im wondering is: > > > > > > > > > > > >Isnt IETF the default encapsulation method for Frame Relay on > >Cisco > > > > > >routers? Then, as im sure it is. Why would IETF be used if it > > >wasn't > > > >a > > > > > >cisco router? > > > > > > > > > > > >Would someone like to explain it to me briefly? Its probably me > > >just > > > > > >messing things up :) > > > > > > > > > > > >Best, > > > > > >Morgan > > > > > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > > >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: > >http://messenger.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: >http://messenger.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48061&t=48044 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
