From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 15:48:57 GMT-3
Donny,
THis sounds correct. It sounds like the same principle which causes you
to have to do "full mesh", 3 way redistribution on a router with 3
routing protocols to be redistributed. I have noticed that in this
scenario the same thing happens.
Anthony PAce
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:43:04 +0800, "Donny MATEO"
<donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com> said:
>
> I'm not sure but perhaps
>
> ospf 1 is distributed to ospf 2.
> then ospf 2 is distribute to igrp.
> All this is done under one router.
>
> The question is why the route of ospf 1 does not appear in the routing
> table of igrp.
> I'm not sure but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the
> route that is distributed to
> other routing protocol has to appear in the routing table ( this is
> where I might be wrong... )
> If this happens in a single router, the routing table would be that of
> the ospf 1 process (as in
> ospf 2 it would be external). So when you redistribute to ospf 2 to
> igrp, only the "summarized"
> route appears cause that one is in the routing table and known from
> ospf 2. While the rest of the
> route osfp 2 knows are external and are know in ospf 1 as internal,
> which is prefered and listed in
> the routing table.
> I will have to test this to verify, but I'm sure someone in the list
> would have the answer by now.
> Search the archive, I believe this had been discussed before.
>
> Donny
>
>
>
> "Anthony Pace"
> <anthonypace@fast To: "ccie
> candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>,
> ccielab@groupstudy.com, "jin"
> mail.fm>
> <jin10101010@hotmail.com>
> Sent by: cc:
> nobody@groupstudy Subject: Re:
> Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> .com
>
>
> 25-07-2002 01:18
> Please respond to
> "Anthony Pace"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I had a question earlier in this thread:
>
> I have also used this 2 process method but still am curious as to why
> both OSPF processes need to be REDISTRIBUTED into IGRP. I have found
> that this is needed; but it seems like the second process would contain
> a full set of the OSPF routes and I would think it would be the only
> thing that would need to be RED into IGRP. DOes anyone know why both
> need to go into IGRP?
>
> The answer seemed to "the requirements of the lab asked for the first
> process to be redistributed". Setting the requiremments of the lab
> aside, why won't this work (it won't work for me):
>
> OSPF1 => OSPF2 => IGRP
>
> This works:
>
> OSPF1 => OSPF2 => IGRP
> OSPF1 => IGRP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 03:08:55 -0700, "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> said:
> > well i didnt get all your points ..however the two ospf processes is
> > just working as perfect solution for the summary problem .
> > the question is to redistribute the ospf running on the interfaces into
> > IGRP , so you SHOULD fulfill this requirement , the other process is
> > your own way to solve the summarization issue ..so you end up
> > redistibuting both ..
> >
> >
> > good luck
> > --
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:37:52
> > jin wrote:
> > >Right,
> > >ospf and igrp should be redistributed mutually.
> > >but he told us 'redistributed' , only about 'redistributed'.
> > >If we already made static route or default route, we can use the static an
d default route
> origination.
> > >but if we not make that already, we can't use anything.
> > >Should Be only Redistributed.
> > >
> > >I think.
> > >Only way for that problem is Understanding how to use of Summary address c
ommand on the ospf.
> > >The important thing is that summary address command can summarize the any
routes that isn't exist
> on the routing table Tagging OSPF.
> > >If you can understand this, You can redistrubute the ospf into igrp and ri
p.
> > >And I already make a success on that situation.
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> > >To: "kym blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>; <ccie1@lycos.com>; <fangloma@pacif
ic.net.hk>;
> <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>; "Anthony Pace"
> <anthonypace@fastmail.fm>
> > >Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 5:03 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> > >
> > >
> > >> probably because the question is asking you to redistribute the ospf (os
pf1) into IGRP on that
> router .:))))
> > >>
> > >> good point ..HAH
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:28:40
> > >> Anthony Pace wrote:
> > >> >I have also used this 2 process method but still am curious as to why
> > >> >both OSPF processes need to be REDISTRIBUTED into IGRP. I have found
> > >> >that this is needed; but it seems like the second process would contain
> > >> >a full set of the OSPF routes and I would think it would be the only
> > >> >thing that would need to be RED into IGRP. DOes anyone know why both
> > >> >need to go into IGRP?
> > >> >
> > >> >Anthony Pace
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:28:26 +0000, "kym blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>
> > >> >said:
> > >> >> C,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Example OSPF1 area, you have:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 192.168.1.0/24
> > >> >> 192.168.2.0/24
> > >> >> 192.168.3.0/26
> > >> >>
> > >> >> redistribute ospf1 into IGRP, but IGRP only receives .1 and .2
> > >> >> networks.
> > >> >> Solution:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> router ospf 2
> > >> >> redistribute ospf 1 metric-type 1 subnets
> > >> >> summary-address 192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0
> > >> >>
> > >> >> router igrp 100
> > >> >> redistribute ospf 1 metric 1000 100 255 1 1500
> > >> >> redistribute ospf 2 metric 1000 100 255 1 1500
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course add appropriate filtering and passive-interfaces.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> HTH, Kym
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >From: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> > >> >> >Reply-To: "ccie candidate" <ccie1@lycos.com>
> > >> >> >To: fangloma@pacific.net.hk, Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz,
"kym
> > >> >> >blair" <kymblair@hotmail.com>
> > >> >> >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >> >> >Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> > >> >> >Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:44:23 -0700
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > guys ;
> > >> >> >im still having confusing about this method .
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >if you create an OSPF2 process , and you want to summarize the OSP
F1 into
> > >> >> >it , again you are using the summary command into the wrong directio
n !!!
> > >> >> >,summary address is supposed to summarize external routes into OSPF1
and
> > >> >> >not OSPF1 internal non-classful routes into OSPF2 ...am i right or i
m
> > >> >> >missing something here .
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >this subject has been killed on this mailing list hundered of times
> > >> >> >..however i didnt find any clue for it .
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >can any folk post the right dierctions to solve this problem ..i wou
ld
> > >> >> >appreciate if anyone correct my concepts.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >candidate
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >--
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:44:32
> > >> >> > kym blair wrote:
> > >> >> > >Darryl,
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >There are a couple methods. The one many people like is to create
a
> > >> >> >second
> > >> >> > >OSPF process, redistribute the first ospf process into the second,
> > >> >> >summarize
> > >> >> > >each non-classful network under the second ospf process, then
> > >> >> >redistribute
> > >> >> > >both ospf processes into RIP/IGRP.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >HTH, Kym
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >>From: Fanglo MA <fangloma@pacific.net.hk>
> > >> >> > >>Reply-To: Fanglo MA <fangloma@pacific.net.hk>
> > >> >> > >>To: Darryl Munro <Darryl.Munro@computerland.co.nz>
> > >> >> > >>CC: Group Study <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >> >> > >>Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
> > >> >> > >>Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:59:03 +0800 (HKT)
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>Would you consider using route-map to direct summary address poin
t to
> > >> >> > >>null0 to replace the static route functionality?
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>Regards,
> > >> >> > >>Fanglo
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >>On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Darryl Munro wrote:
> > >> >> > >>
> > >> >> > >> > How is it possible to redistribute from OSPF to IGRP/RIP witho
ut
> > >> >> >using
> > >> >> > >> > statics to Null0? I know that the mask needs to be the same as
the
> > >> >> > >>IGRP/RIP
> > >> >> > >> > domain, however is it achievable to do this with area range co
mmands
> > >> >> >and
> > >> >> > >> > summary-address's positioned at the right the places in your O
SPF
> > >> >> > >>domain?
> > >> >> > >> > Area range should take care of all of the OSPF inter area rout
es and
> > >> >> > >>summary
> > >> >> > >> > address the external addresses from other routing protocols. I
just
> > >> >> > >>can't
> > >> >> > >> > seem to work this one out in my lab. Any suggestions would be
> > >> >> > >>appreciated.
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > TIA
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Darryl Munro
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > CNE, MCSE, CCNP, CCDP, CCEA
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Systems Consultant
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Computerland NZ
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > 104-106 Customs St West
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > PO Box 3631, Auckland
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Phone: 09 306 8700
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Cell Phone 027 2897786
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > Darryl <mailto:darryl.munro@computerland.co.nz> Munro
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> >
> > >> >> > >> > CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain
> > >> >> > >>information
> > >> >> > >> > that is confidential and subject to privilege. If you are not
the
> > >> >> > >>intended
> > >> >> > >> > recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distr
ibution
> > >> >> >or
> > >> >> > >> > copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have re
ceived
> > >> >> > >>this
> > >> >> > >> > e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and delete all m
aterial
> > >> >> > >> > pertaining to this e-mail. Ceritas / Computerland will not acc
ept
> > >> >> > >>liability
> > >> >> > >> > for any loss or damage caused by using any material or attachm
ents
> > >> >> > >>contained
> > >> >> > >> > in this message. While every best practice has been taken to,
no
> > >> >> > >>warranty is
> > >> >> > >> > made that this material is free from computer virus or other d
efect.
> > >> >> > >> > Ceritas/Computerland's entire liability will be limited to
> > >> >> >resupplying
> > >> >> > >>the
> > >> >> > >> > material. Thank you
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:43 GMT-3