From: Cade Wagner (cwagner@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 23:38:55 GMT-3
I am curious how these other two methods work. (tunnel and secondary
addressing) Could someone explain these? I have some ideas, but they are
untested:
Tunnel:
1. Use addressing in the same subnet with the same mask as what needs to be
distributed.
2. Use addressing in an entirely different subnet so that you get the
summarization effect.
Secondary:
1. Not sure here.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie candidate [mailto:ccie1@lycos.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 3:42 PM
To: Donny MATEO; Anthony Pace
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Redistrbuting from OSPF to RIP/IGRP
on previous post by one CCIE guy
he said this technique is not allowed on the lab ??
however techniques like tunnel and secodary ip addresses is acceptable .
can anyone confirm this ? and why ??
--On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:48:57 Anthony Pace wrote: >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 and 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 command 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 rip. >> > >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@pacific.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 (ospf1) 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 OSPF1 into >> > >> >> >it , again you are using the summary command into the wrong direction !!! >> > >> >> >,summary address is supposed to summarize external routes into OSPF1 and >> > >> >> >not OSPF1 internal non-classful routes into OSPF2 ...am i right or im >> > >> >> >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 would >> > >> >> >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 point 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 without >> > >> >> >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 commands >> > >> >> >and >> > >> >> > >> > summary-address's positioned at the right the places in your OSPF >> > >> >> > >>domain? >> > >> >> > >> > Area range should take care of all of the OSPF inter area routes 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, distribution >> > >> >> >or >> > >> >> > >> > copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have received >> > >> >> > >>this >> > >> >> > >> > e-mail in error, please notify me immediately and delete all material >> > >> >> > >> > pertaining to this e-mail. Ceritas / Computerland will not accept >> > >> >> > >>liability >> > >> >> > >> > for any loss or damage caused by using any material or attachments >> > >> >> > >>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 defect. >> > >> >> > >> > 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 - 19:36:46 GMT-3