Timothy Ouellette wrote: > What i'm trying to do is get the 141.108.3.0/24 and > 141.108.4.0/24 to show up on r2 as rip routes heard from r1. > I'm redistributing ospf 1 into rip with a metric of 5.
Hi Tim, The short answer to your problem is that you are not actually redistributing between your protocols. The proof is your route table at R2: you said you're redistributing with a metric of 5, but look at the metric on R2, it's 1. Rip will only redistribute routes in (from the same classful network) if they have the same subnet mask. Your OSPF network has no /24 routes, therefore no redistribution. The reason you get the routes when you add a null0 routes to R1 is that your rip network 141.104.0.0 statement picks up the static null0 routes and sends them natively - no resitribution required. (kill your ospf and watch the routes stay in rip) Summary-address only works for routes being distributed *INTO* OSPF, not the other way round. The only places you can summarize a route within OSPF is between areas. Now you can do some funky virtual-link or dual-process summarization, but really that's like hammering the square peg into the round hole. Really, it comes down to whether your network has been designed for proper summarization: this network as it stands can't easily be summarized. If you still want to summarize, I would start thinking about re-architecting to multi-area OSPF, and injecting summaries between the areas. If you make R1 the border between the areas, you should find that the /24 summarized routes which will appear on R1 will flow to R2 just fine. As always, good luck! --Wes Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49128&t=49107 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
