From: Erick B. (erickbe@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 17 2001 - 21:05:38 GMT-3
That would work as well but I don't like redist
connected unless its absoulutly needed. Sure, its a
quick and dirty way to put all interfaces in the
routing process but if you bring up another interface
on that router down the road and forget about the
redist connected things could get ugly depending on
the network layout.
I think the original poster possibly has a issue with
the routers connecting to each other exchanging IGRP
routes. If you can ping the other router over the
directly connected interface and the directly
connected interfaces are in the same IGRP AS# on both
routers then the routes should be exchanged unless you
have passive-interfaces, serial interface config issue
(FR, etc), code issue, etc. Need to know more
information on the configuration he's doing.
--- Dan <dp595@optonline.net> wrote:
> Actually I would like to correct myself. I really
> can't say that Erick's
> solution is much better in most cases. It just
> really depends. You need to
> know how to do it both ways and you need to be able
> to determine when which
> method is more appropriate.
> In your case adding the "network x.x.x.x" statement
> under the IGRP process
> is probably the best way to go, although I'd have to
> see your config and
> requirements/desired results before saying for sure.
>
> Dan Pontrelli
> Customer Installation Engineer - Verio NYC
> CCNP, MCSE, CNA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan" <dp595@optonline.net>
> To: "Erick B." <erickbe@yahoo.com>; "Jonghwan Hyon"
> <jerry@datacraft-korea.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 4:36 PM
> Subject: Re: How advertise loopback interface in
> IGRP update?
>
>
> > You can also "redistribute connected" under the
> igrp process, although if
> > the only connected network you want to advertise
> is the loopback, you'll
> > have to filter the other connected networks from
> being redistributed into
> > igrp (I believe this holds true even if you have
> all other connected
> > interaces designated as passive interfaces under
> the IGRP process, as
> > passive interface only stops 'outgoing' IGRP
> advertisements on that
> > interface).
> >
> > Erick's solution is much simpler and the best way
> to go in "most" cases,
> > although "redistributing connected" is something
> you should possess
> > knowledge of in case you need it. For example, if
> you had 300 interfaces
> in
> > a router, you might not want to enter a "network
> x.x.x.x" command for
> every
> > interface under the IGRP process. It would
> probably be better to just
> > redistribute the connected networks/subnets and
> filter as apporpriate.
> >
> >
> > Dan Pontrelli
> > Customer Installation Engineer - Verio NYC
> > CCNP, MCSE, CNA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erick B." <erickbe@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Jonghwan Hyon" <jerry@datacraft-korea.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 4:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: How advertise loopback interface in
> IGRP update?
> >
> >
> > > Just need to put the IP network you assigned to
> the
> > > loopback under 'router igrp #' and it'll work
> fine.
> > >
> > > Check to make sure the IP networks are correct
> under
> > > router igrp and that you specify the network
> under the
> > > ethernet/serial/whatever interface connecting to
> other
> > > router running IGRP on its interface connecting
> to
> > > you.
> > >
> > > --- Jonghwan Hyon <jerry@datacraft-korea.com>
> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I setup loopback interface and run IGRP
> routing
> > > > protocol.
> > > > I want to advertise the network set on
> loopback
> > > > interface,
> > > > but it is not advertized in IGRP!
> > > > What I do miss? or there is a mean to
> advertise the
> > > > loopback in IGRP?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, my poor English!
> > > > regards,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:52 GMT-3