From: John Neiberger (neiby@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 05 2002 - 01:42:09 GMT-3
Yes, that will work. However, to make this like the original
scenario, on the router that includes the distribute list you
should try to redistribute that summarized route into another
protocol, like IGRP. It won't work because the route is not in
the table.
This technique only works if the routes are remaining in OSPF.
If you find a way to configure this so that the redistributing
router does not have the route in its table yet it still
redistributes it into IGRP, please let me know.
As it stands, I don't see how you could make it work.
Regards,
John
---- On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@compaq.com)
wrote:
> I just do a test with Jason suggetsed, it work for both
summary (ABR,
> ASBR). The null route is remove from R4 routing table,
summary routeis
> advertise to it neighbor R5. See my config attach :
>
> [lo43 .43.0/24-area 43]->(R4)--area 0--(R5)
> [lo41,42 .41.0,.42.0 Ext}
> --------------------------------------------
> !R4 IOS 12.1(9)
> ---------------
> router ospf 130
> log-adjacency-changes
> area 43 range 130.130.43.0 255.255.255.0
> summary-address 130.130.41.0 255.255.255.0
> summary-address 130.130.42.0 255.255.255.0
> redistribute connected metric 123 subnets route-map c2o
> network 130.130.43.4 0.0.0.0 area 43
> network 130.130.54.4 0.0.0.0 area 0
> distribute-list 1 in
> !
> !
> access-list 1 deny 130.130.41.0 0.0.0.255 log
> access-list 1 deny 130.130.42.0 0.0.0.255 log
> access-list 1 deny 130.130.43.0 0.0.0.255 log
> access-list 1 permit any
> !
> route-map c2o permit 10
> match interface Loopback40 Loopback41 Loopback42
> !
> r4_pc#sir
> 130.130.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 3 masks
> C 130.130.4.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0
> C 130.130.40.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback40
> C 130.130.41.0/28 is directly connected, Loopback41
> C 130.130.42.0/26 is directly connected, Loopback42
> C 130.130.43.0/28 is directly connected, Loopback43
> C 130.130.54.0/26 is directly connected, Serial1/2
> r4_pc#
> =========================================================
> R5 : IOS 12.1(9)
> ----------------
> router ospf 130
> log-adjacency-changes
> network 130.130.54.5 0.0.0.0 area 0
> !
> r5_pc#sir
> 130.130.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 9 subnets, 3 masks
> C 130.130.5.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback0
> O E2 130.130.40.0/24 [110/123] via 130.130.54.4, 00:00:26,
Serial4/1
> O E2 130.130.41.0/24 [110/123] via 130.130.54.4, 00:00:26,
Serial4/1
> O E2 130.130.42.0/24 [110/123] via 130.130.54.4, 00:00:26,
Serial4/1
> O IA 130.130.43.0/24 [110/65] via 130.130.54.4, 00:00:26,
Serial4/1
> SNIP
> C 130.130.54.0/26 is directly connected, Serial4/1
>
> r5_pc#show ip ospf database summary 130.130.43.0
>
> OSPF Router with ID (130.130.52.5) (Process ID 130)
>
>
> Summary Net Link States (Area 0)
>
> Routing Bit Set on this LSA
> LS age: 6
> Options: (No TOS-capability, DC, Upward)
> LS Type: Summary Links(Network)
> Link State ID: 130.130.43.0 (summary Network Number)
> Advertising Router: 130.130.42.4
> LS Seq Number: 80000003
> Checksum: 0xCCA
> Length: 28
> Network Mask: /24
> TOS: 0 Metric: 1
>
> r5_pc#show ip ospf database external 130.130.41.0
>
> OSPF Router with ID (130.130.52.5) (Process ID 130)
>
>
> Type-5 AS External Link States
>
> Routing Bit Set on this LSA
> LS age: 1319
> Options: (No TOS-capability, DC)
> LS Type: AS External Link
> Link State ID: 130.130.41.0 (External Network Number )
> Advertising Router: 130.130.42.4
> LS Seq Number: 80000001
> Checksum: 0x8453
> Length: 36
> Network Mask: /24
> Metric Type: 2 (Larger than any link state path)
> TOS: 0
> Metric: 123
> Forward Address: 0.0.0.0
> External Route Tag: 0
>
>
> Parry Chua
>
> ///////////////////
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Narvaez, Pablo [mailto:Pablo.Narvaez@getronics.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:41 AM
> To: Jason; Ahmed Mamoor Amimi; neiby@ureach.com;
Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com;
> Warren J Dubose
> Cc: 'Mas Kato' ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution (I know this has
been
> killed, th i s is short I promise)
>
>
> I've tried that and from my experience, a distribute list
will remove
> the null0 route from the routing table and also
> will avoid this route to be propagated. It makes sense,
doesn't it? ....
> what you really send between 2 OSPF routers is what you got
in the local
> routing table, not the database. For example, if you have
problems with
> your local OSPF database due to an external forwarding
address known
> thru an external route, network-type mismatch or whatever,
you'll see
> those routes in the database but not in the routing table; in
turn, you
> will not be able to propagate those routes to your neighbor.
>
> Am I right? ....
>
> hockito
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason [mailto:jgraun@attbi.com]
> Sent: Jueves, 04 de Abril de 2002 08:16 p.m.
> To: 'Ahmed Mamoor Amimi'; neiby@ureach.com;
Guy.Lupi@eurekaggn.com;
> 'Warren J Dubose '
> Cc: ''Mas Kato' '; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: RE: OSPF to IGRP redistribution (I know this has
been
> killed, th i s is short I promise)
>
>
> If you use a distribute list you can remove the route from
the route
> table but still have the summary LSA propagated to the rest
of the
> routers.
> /////////////
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:55 GMT-3