From: Rick Burts (burts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 24 2001 - 10:27:27 GMT-3
Brian
Thanks for verifying the correct behavior of redistribution. There have
been inconsistencies in implementation and it is good to know that the
intended correct behavior is to redistribute any route in the routing
table learned by the protocol and also to redistribute any local network
or subnet covered by a network statement of the protocol.
While we now know the expected correct behavior, I would suggest to
candidates preparing for the lab that we need to remain aware of this
issue and alert to the behavior of the particular verios of IOS that we
get in the lab.
Rick
Rick Burts, CCSI CCIE 4615 burts@mentortech.com
Mentor Technologies 240-568-6500 ext 6652
133 National Business Parkway 240-568-6515 fax
Annapolis Junction, Md 20701
Chesapeake Network Solutions has now become Mentor Technologies.
Mentor Technologies is a certified Cisco Training Partner and also
a Cisco Professional Services partner.
We offer most of the Cisco training courses.
We also offer training in Checkpoint Firewall software and
Fore Systems (now Marconi) and MicroMuse.
We also provide network consulting services including
design, management, and problem solving.
We have 21 CCIEs on our staff.
We offer the breakthrough VLAB remote access technology for
access to practice configuration on real equipment.
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Brian Hescock wrote:
> I've spoken with several Cisco Development Engineers and here's the
> correct behavior regarding whether we redistribute directly connected
> networks:
>
> The correct behavior is to redistribute directly connected networks as
> long as the network is covered by a network statement in the protocol to
> be redistributed. It's a bug if the directly connected network isn't
> redistribued in that situation. So the statement "we only redistribute
> from the routing table" is incomplete, we redistribute routes from the
> routing table and those directly connected networks covered by a network
> statement in the protocol to be redistributed.
>
> Example:
>
> int e 0
> ip add 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> int e 1
> ip add 10.2.2.1 255.255.255.0
>
> router rip
> network 10.0.0.0
>
> router ospf 1
> network 10.2.2.1 0.0.0.0 area 0
> redistribute rip metric 100 subnets
>
> 10.1.1.0 /24 is known as a directly connected route. But it's included
> under the 10.0.0.0 network statement under router rip so the network is
> flagged by rip and ospf will then redistribute the directly connected
> network. You do not need to use "redistributed connected" unless you
> don't have a network statement that doesn't cover the network on the
> interface. So if ethernet 2 was 9.1.1.1, it wouldn't be redistributed
> unless you use "redistribute connected" since 9.1.1.1 doesn't fall under
> the 10.0.0.0 network statement. But it would be redistributed if you
> had "network 9.0.0.0" under router rip also.
>
> So the answer is any behaviour you see in earlier code where it doesn't
> redistribute in this situaiton is a bug and where it does redistribute
> in 12.1 and 12.2 is correct. This wasn't a change in behavior, just
> bugs in earlier code where you saw the problem.
>
> Please let me know if I've made a typo that changes the meaning and I'll
> send out a correction, thanks.
>
> Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:24 GMT-3