Hi,
I noticed the same behavior with EIGRP and ISIS. The explanation I made
is that the router is right. Indeed, the directly connected route is
not learned by ISIS (because it is directly connected :-)). This is
always a question, if to redistribute directly connected subnets or to
include
Thanks a lot Daniel. That was exactly the type of solution I was looking
for.
Robert
""Daniel Cotts"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Try
> passive-interface default
> no passive-interface s0 (or whatever)
> Works for EIGRP. Not sure about RIP.
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > F
Try
passive-interface default
no passive-interface s0 (or whatever)
Works for EIGRP. Not sure about RIP.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Edmonds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Redistribution question [7:66071]
>
>
Try
passive-interface default
no passive-interface s0 (or whatever)
Works for EIGRP. Not sure about RIP.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Edmonds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Redistribution question [7:66071]
>
>
Unfortunately the browser did not get the diagram character right.
Diagram should be:
(route)- r8 - (eigrp 1) - r7 - (ospf) - r6
r7 - eigrp 1 - r6
r7 runs ospf and eigrp 1 with r6.
r7 runs eigrp 1 with r8
r8 redistributes connected interface.
The question is with r7.
r7 is redistributing ospf
Sorry if I am misunderstanding your diagram. Where do you think the loop
should appear?
Routes originating on R8 would appear as connected, and therefore not be
overwritten by redistribution, Same on R7.
I guess I am just not seeing what the topology is or where you think the
break should be.
"
2002 08:09:50 PM
Please respond to "The Long and Winding Road"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Redistribution Practice - a couple of thoughts [7:55748]
an addition to the mix
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote i
an addition to the mix
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in
message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
in no particular order of importance, and for no particular reason.
1) redistributing classful protocols into classless protocols and visa
versa
a) getting smaller subne
Rajesh Kumar wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Everytime I get confused with this metrics while redistribution
This message will have a few basic comments and then a more complicated
comment at the end, when I realized your question was more advanced than we
originally thought...
Routing protocols aren't
""Clark, John"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What difference does it make when I say "default-metric 1 100 255 1
> 1550" instead of the above.
>
> answer: EIGRP uses a composite metric so you would be changing the
bandwidth
> (1) and MTU (1550) for route
What difference does it make when I say "default-metric 1 100 255 1
1550" instead of the above.
answer: EIGRP uses a composite metric so you would be changing the bandwidth
(1) and MTU (1550) for routes from ospf that were redistributed into
EIGRP. All the metric does is set a base metric
Thanks Dennis it's very helpfull
Point 6 and 7 in steps for redistribution, how do we determine, if
route-maps or distribution-lists are required, or can we just always omit
the route-maps or distribution-lists command to prevent routing loops in
two-way redistribution, the main thing is the conf
AD distance comes into play when you have two routes with the same metrics...
When using redistribution, use one way if possible or two way if you MUST.
The general rule is put higher metrics on routes whicih of course are less
preferable...If want my OSPF routes to have a higher metric than my EI
ooh ooh, I'm getting ready to have some fun with this one. got it mocked up
in my lab. just want to clarify something prior to jumping through hoops and
writing a report.
On R4 you have mutual redistribution between OSPF and EIGRP? ospf---> eigrp
and eigrp -ospf ??
On R2 you have the same -
This is actually something a co-worker has drawn up for me. One of my
weaker points has always been multiple redistribution between multiple
protocols. Goes something like this:
R1-R2R3
||
||
hmmm interesting discussion. the scenario reminds me of something I saw
from someplace called NT Labs, maybe?
Let's see if I can sketch the scene:
R1-R2-R3
IGRP bunch of stuff OSPF/EIGRP
R2:
router IGRP
redistribute OSPF route-map filter-
On 1 router I am redistributing OSPF into IGRP, EIGRP into IGRP, and OSPF
into EIGRP. Downstream, I am redistributing OSPF into EIGRP. The loop in
this scenario is deadly so I need to find a way to let both EIGRP and OSPF
redistribute only routes originating from their domains into IGRP. The pl
I did a little bit of research on this, being curious as to the reason for
your question.
essentially, the logic illustrated below works just fine. the questions that
came up are:
1) how to tag the eigrp routes in the first place and
2) why the routes may not appear in IGRP assuming the eigrp ta
Thanks Chuck. This is actually part of a greater redistribution plan to
match routes already in EIGRP from another protocol and prevent them from
going into IGRP. I then permit those routers in the other protocol into
IGRP and deny the EIGRP routes in that protocol. Since I can use the tag to
m
Route maps are essentially built around an "if then else(if)" logic. the
point of their activation is the point of their inception.
therefore if you were to have a route-map such as:
route-map eigrp_tag_igrp permit 10
match tag X
set metric 1 100 255 1 1500
and the redistribute statement:
How interesting... it never, ever occurred to me to use prefix
lists to filter anything but BGP. Hmm... Talk about needing
to think outside of the box, huh? :-)
I'm going to have to play with that idea.
Thanks,
John
Get your own "800" numbe
in that case, use a route map in conjunction with a prefix list. it might
get a little hairy if there are lots of routes from different network
classes coming in ;->
Chuck
""Aamer Kaleem"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am sorry i did not mention that RIP int
Rip v1 ...
Bri
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Aamer Kaleem wrote:
> How to configure RIP not to accept routes with subnet mask longer than 24
> bitsany ideas
>
> Thank you,
>
> Aamer
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33151&t=33138
---
I am sorry i did not mention that RIP interface is sending and receiving
Version 2 at interface level.my fault...
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33142&t=33138
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http:
configure a /24 or shorter on the interface receiving the updates... ;->
seriously, RIP will accept routes over a particular interface 1) by assuming
that the incoming routes have the same mask as is used on that interface OR
2) at the classfull boundary.
therefore, if the interface mask is a /2
Do you see RIP routes BBR...?
Also Do you see EIGRP routes on TS...?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3&t=30990
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report mis
check your subnet masks. IGRP doesn't support variable length subnet masks
and will summarize on classful boundaries.
Also, you might want to use no auto-summary with eigrp if you want the
subnets redist into igrp.
- Original Message -
From: "Cisco Nuts"
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 03
gt; practice.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> John Neiberger
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Redistribution and Filtering [7:28699]
>
> But
]]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redistribution and Filtering [7:28699]
Filtering is, yes. Of coarse I'm assuming your not talking about a single
router network since you are redistributing routing protocols.
Dave
John Neiberger wrote:
>
>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Redistribution and Filtering [7:28699]
But is it ever necessary if you're only using a single router to do the
redistribution?
>>> "Bill Carter" 12/10/01 10:55:23 AM >>>
Yes it is over
Filtering is, yes. Of coarse I'm assuming your not talking about a
single router network since you are redistributing routing protocols.
Dave
John Neiberger wrote:
>
> But is it ever necessary if you're only using a single router to do the
> redistribution?
>
> >>> "Bill Carter" 12/10/01 10
But is it ever necessary if you're only using a single router to do the
redistribution?
>>> "Bill Carter" 12/10/01 10:55:23 AM >>>
Yes it is overkill. Yes it is good practice to use either route-maps
or
distribute lists. Control is better.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [m
It;s not required at all, in fact you could do redistribution long
before route-maps existed.
Not sure what you mean when you say "if there are no loops". one of
the things you need to be aware of is creating loops when redistributing
not having loops prior to, though that would obviously be a
Yes it is overkill. Yes it is good practice to use either route-maps or
distribute lists. Control is better.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
William Lijewski
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Redistr
IGRP will automatically summarize the route to the classful boundary since
it has no connections to that network. If you look at the route table in
Chuck's last message, you will see a classful route to the 10.0.0.0 network.
""Hunt Lee"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Ok - on Router C (the redistribution router - I changed the network
statement from network 192.168.1.18 0.0.0.0 area 0 to network 192.168.1.0
0.0.0.255 area 0 and everything works straight away :)
However, the more puzzling thing is that without any Ip route and
Summary-address from Router C (to
Like Stefan Dozier, I too recreated this on my pod, and I am unable to
duplicate your problem. I was wrong - IGRP will see the 192.168.1.0/24
subnet come in. As you can see from my Router D table, all the routes are
there. I am able to ping from all routers to al other routers.
I10.0.0.0/8 [1
some of the answer. Think "classfull" in terms
of IGRP behaviour.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hunt Lee
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redistribution Question [7:28374]
I alrea
oute to a blackhole of sorts to drop packets. I'm sure their
may be other reasons and uses available, and ifso someone here will
clue me in!
Stefan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hunt Lee
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:09 PM
To: [
And from Router D, I can ping back to A, but not to B:
RouterD#ping 10.1.1.100
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.100, timeout is 2 seconds:
!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 84/86/88 ms
RouterD#ping 192.168.1.17
Type escape s
I already had the default-metric statment on the ASBR (Router C for IGRP
process), I tried to add this to Router D (IGRP process), with no help.
These are the routing table outputs and trace routes outputs from the
routers:
Any ideas??
Thanks.
Hunt
RouterA#show ip route
Codes: C - connected, S
Well since I need the redistribution practice, figured
I'd plug your config into my pod and see if I could figure
out what gives!
First thing I noticed...and it may just be a typo or dyslexia
(it's an affliction I experience often (smile))if you didn't
cut and paste your configs.
>From your post.
first question - what routes are showing up in the OSPF domain? What routes
show up in the IGRP domain?
2nd question - what is the destination address you are pinging from both A
and D ( the successful? )
offhand I would say that IGRP should be seeing a 10.0.0.0 network and a
couple of the /28's
I think it should be
router ospf 100
network x.x.x.x mask y.y.y.y
redistribute igrp 100 subnets
default-metric
router igrp 100
network x.x.x.x
redistribute ospf 100
default-metric
Because igrp not support VLSM,
Best regards
- Original Message -
From: "Hunt Lee"
To:
Se
you've chosen a very difficult redistribution exercise - redistributing from
a smaller to larger prefix.
Assuming you know how to redistribute generally (it looks like you're
already a CCIE), you know that the summary-address in OSPF summarizes
inbound into OSPF, and is advertised by OSPF at an A
the topic of IGRP/OSPF redistribution has been covered every which way
including Sunday on the CCIE list.
If you are not yet subscribed to that list, you can still check the archives
http://www.groupstudy.com/cgi-bin/wilma/ccielab
FYI, there has been thorough coverage of ALL the practice lab ma
what a coincidence, Dennis...my lab study partner and I just put one
together yesterday for metrics, and it looks like this:
Redistribute Metrics To
>From RIP IGRPEIGRPOSPFBGP
RIP Xyes yessubnets no
IGRP yesX nosubnets
"default-information originate" will inject 0.0.0.0 in OSPF, PROVIDED that
the router itself has a default route (either learnt dynamically, or set
statically). To force the injection of default route into OSPF, whether or
not the router has a default route, use "default-information originate
alwa
must be summarized on the 59.3 router. The networks are
172.17.59.104/30, 172.17.59.108/30, and 172.17.59.96/29. These must be
summarized to a /28. The key observation is that all three subnets
summarize to the same /28 network, 172.17.59.96. Using a "area x range
172.17.59.96 255.255.255.240"
command on r1 so one approach is to summarize in the other areas to a
/28. The /29 IA from 59.3 can be summarized as area x range 172.17.96.0
255.255.255.240. The /30 IA from
59.3 can be summarized as area x range 172.17.108.0 255.255.255.240.
And the /30 IA from 59.1 can be summarized as area
Hi;
By using summary-address under OSPF routing configuration
that I consider it is one of workable solution.
So the IGRP can reach the OSPF variable subnet that I believe.
Correct me if I am wrong.
HTH
Vincent Chong
""Virnoche, Phil"" Here is my problem:
>
> The major network is 172.17.
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Virnoche, Phil wrote:
> Here is my problem:
>
> The major network is 172.17.0.0
> (OSPF domain with /28, /29, /30) R2 -IGRP link/28-- R4 (IGRP domain
> /28)
>
> Mutual redistribution at R1... knowing that I have only 1 network (variably
> subnetted) how can I get a "
I'm gonna take a shot:
On R2 if you add:
ip route 172.17.59.96 255.255.255.240 null 0
and under igrp add:
redistribute static
R4 should get the 172.17.59.96/28 route and send the traffic to R2.
Once it gets to R2 the more specific routes with the /29 & /30 masks
should forward it into the OSPF
>Hi all:
>I was wondering what is the criteria I can think of to Redistribute default
>route from RIP to OSPF.
>Any help regarding Redistribution between RIP and OSPF will be appreciated.
>
>Regards
>Almazi
Why redistribute at all, rather than just having OSPF originate
default from the ASBR con
See Inline...
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Larrieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Nigel Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: Redistribution -
First edition, correct?
There is a website, http://www.netcordia.com/advip-first-edition/bugs1.html
where ostensibly there are bug reports listed. I don't find yours in
particular - most of them appear to be cosmetic things such as typeface and
missing lines.
In looking over the configurations i
x 256
regards;
TL Yang
-Original Message-
From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 2:51 PM
To: Chuck Larrieu
Cc: Priscilla Oppenheimer; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes
Subject: RE: Redistribution - some experiments
Well if you don't adjust the K values, t
his book Advanced IP routing in Cisco Networks, Slattery uses many
> >examples of the redistribution metric. In each case it appears that he
> tries
> >to match the bandwidth, but uses values of 100, 255,1 and 1500 for all
> other
> >places
> >
> >I should have a bit
idays, everyone.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:38 PM
To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes
Subject:RE: Redistribution
At 12:00 PM 11/22/00, C
try redistributing connected subnets as well, I am not sure that will help
but is worth a try
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Watson, Rick, , OUSDC
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (E-mail)
Subject:
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 11:33 AM
>To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes
>Subject:RE: Redistribution
>
>At 10:14 AM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
&g
> I should have a bit of time tonight, and I will set up a quick&dirty lab
and
> experiment.
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 11:33 AM
> To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco M
I agree with Chuck. However, the default coefficient (K) values cause
the effects of load to be ignored. So it worked and noone noticed the
minor error until you scrutinized the config.
Cendant? I just taught a CIT class in NYC to two folks from there...
Marty Adkins Email:
00 11:33 AM
To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List; James Haynes
Subject:RE: Redistribution
At 10:14 AM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>Probably the person who did it originally did not understand how the
metrics
>should be set up.
>
>Reliability goes low to high. Lower is more reliab
At 10:14 AM 11/22/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>Probably the person who did it originally did not understand how the metrics
>should be set up.
>
>Reliability goes low to high. Lower is more reliable.
You meant to say load, didn't you?
255 load means a fully-loaded network, which is generally a bad
Maybe they did that on purpose so the redistributed routes would have a
high metric and not be favored??
Priscilla
At 12:33 PM 11/22/00, James Haynes wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I recently took a job at a new company and one of the first tasks I've been
>given is to go over the configuration and documen
Probably the person who did it originally did not understand how the metrics
should be set up.
Reliability goes low to high. Lower is more reliable.
Do a show ip protocol and look at the K values that are reported. I'm
curious as to what they might show.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Watson, Rick, , OUSDC wrote:
> Does the following lines extracted from a configuration redistribute all
> static routes on the router? Or will I have to go through and add the
> specific static routes and redistribute them? Trying to t-shoot an issue and
> was wondering if red
68 matches
Mail list logo
