From: Chuck Larrieu (chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2001 - 13:28:01 GMT-3
The AD for EIGRP is 90. Externally injected routes would have an AD of 170
The AD for OSPF routes is 110
If you have the no auto-summary in place on the EIGRP routers, and you see
the summary route, it is coming in from OSPF as an EX route.
The routing table on R4 is not going to be very helpful in determining what
is coming and going from where. Two routing protocols. Lots of things
happening.
Check R5 or R7 - what do those tables show you?
Check R1 or R3 - what do those tables show you?
I do have a question. I am probably misunderstanding you, but why do you
want EIGRP routes to be redistributed back into EIGRP from OSPF?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Nodir Nazarov [mailto:nodir@datatone.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:16 AM
To: Chuck Larrieu
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: slattery/burton, advanced ip, redistr. ex.10
I reproduced that scenario from the book:
R1 R3 OSPF domain
\ /
R6
|
R2
|
R4 <------------- mutual redistribution
/ \
R5-R7 EIGRP domain
I tried to do different things but I can't get EIGRP routes to be injected
back to EIGRP from OSPF. EIGRP summary: 182.18.0.0/16, OSPF summary:
172.16.0.0/16.
How do I observe that summaries are being redistributed from EIGRP to
OSPF and "bad routes" - back to EIGRP ? I can't justify filtering out OSPF
summary when it redistributes EIGRP.
Please help !
Nodir
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
> The purpose of the distribute-list 4 is to prevent the eigrp summary
router
> 172.16.0.0 from being redistributed back into the eigrp process from the
> ospf process.
>
> My recollection is that in general there were problems with the solution
> provided. Artifact routes. Routes disappearing.
>
> Wait - here it is - my notes from a lab I did on this scenario. Issue -
> distribute list did not solve the problem of the "phantom summary
> 182.18.0.0" being redistributed back into eigrp. I needed a route map to
do
> so.
>
> Also, you might want to take a peek at the archives for the month of
> January. There were several good posts from Nigel on this particular
> scenario .
>
> I vaguely recall doing this scenario a couple of times, and in one try
> finding that if I filtered out the summary, then one routing domain or the
> other was hosed. Can't locate notes. Is this what you are seeing?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Nodir Nazarov
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 7:57 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: slattery/burton, advanced ip, redistr. ex.10
>
>
> Hello, The Group,
>
> This question is regarding Example 10 of redistribution on Slattery/Burton
> "Advanced IP routing..."
>
> Can anybody explain me (who did this example) what is practical
> significance of "distribute-list 4 out" on NewYork router (example 10,
> page 372, line 33). Everything has been relatively smooth until this
> "distribute-list". I was sure I did not need it.
>
> Thank you,
> Nodir
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:09 GMT-3