From: Badger (badger@pongo.org)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 16:26:42 GMT-3
This is exactly my concern too.
Quoting Jason Cash <cash2001@swbell.net>:
> If a requirement is stated as "Only one routing protocol can be active on
> any interface"; is redistributing that interface into another protocol a
> violation of the requirement? From reading a previous thread, I was curious
> and concerned about this. For instance, in the example below, E0 is part of
> the Rip process and the S0.24 is redistributed into it and vice versa for
> EIGRP. Is this an acceptable solution or does this create the instance of
> having two routing protocol active on an interface?
>
>
>
>
>
> interface Ethernet0
>
> description to R1 E0 (crossover)
>
> ip address 172.16.12.2 255.255.255.0
>
> !
>
> interface Serial0.24 point-to-point
>
> ip address 172.16.24.1 255.255.255.252
>
> !
>
> router rip
>
> redistribute connected metric 2 route-map ripc
>
> network 172.16.0.0
>
> !
>
> router eigrp 40
>
> redistribute connected route-map eigrpc
>
> network 172.16.24.0 0.0.0.3
>
> no auto-summary
>
> no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
>
> !
>
> ip access-list standard conn
>
> permit 172.16.12.0 0.0.0.255
>
> permit 172.16.24.0 0.0.0.3
>
> !
>
> route-map ripc permit 10
>
> match ip address conn
>
> !
>
> route-map eigrpc permit 10
>
> match ip address conn
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-----------------
G'day
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:31 GMT-3