From: Thomas Larus (tlarus@cox.net)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 13:58:35 GMT-3
Here is an example from one ASBR where mutual redistribution is done between
EIGRP and OSPF. It is from a scenario (Scenario One of my eBook) where
redistribution is done on three routers. The routes carrying the tag value
of 100 are from RIP and were redistributed into OSPF on another router.
I do not claim that this is the only way to do this, but it is the way I
used in one scenario in my eBook, and it worked. It is possible to make it
simpler than this at the cost of redundant paths, and, frankly, you might
want to do it a simpler way if the task does not require the extra
redundancy (my task specifically required the redundancy). There is a limit
to how much redundancy you can have without creating serious problems.
You need to play around with route tagging and route-maps a lot, because
there are subleties, even unexpected glitches that will pop up, and it is
very easy to make a mistake in one's logic.
Even so, I prefer tagging and route-maps to distribute-lists. Perhaps it is
just more interesting.
router eigrp 20
redistribute ospf 64 metric 1500 20 255 1 1500 route-map otoe
network 172.16.30.20 0.0.0.3
no auto-summary
no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
!
router ospf 64
log-adjacency-changes
area 0 authentication
redistribute eigrp 20 metric-type 1 subnets route-map blocktag64
network 10.1.3.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.16.30.3 0.0.0.0 area 0
!
route-map otoe deny 10
match tag 20
!
route-map otoe permit 20
match tag 100
!
route-map otoe permit 30
set tag 64
!
route-map blocktag64 deny 10
match tag 64
!
route-map blocktag64 deny 20
match tag 100
!
route-map blocktag64 permit 30
set tag 20
!
!
Best regards,
Tom Larus, CCIE #10,014
Author of CCIE Warm-Up: Advice and Learning Labs
http://www.ipexpert.com/products_services/product.asp?sku=ip7777
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Smith" <c00per_omers1@yahoo.com>
To: "Thomas Larus" <tlarus@cox.net>; "Kelley Alan" <kelleya@telecomsys.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Question on NetMasterClass DoIT lab posted previously to
groupstudy.
> Tom,
>
> Just wanted to say I do do this in fact l first started up setting by ospf
process id the same as my router so if R1 it would be router ospf 1, R2
router ospf 2, this of course got confusing so I started using 4 and then I
started setting my alias to include it so that I always had it up and
running pretty quick.
>
> Do you have a sample of the tagging and route-maps, I'm a little bit of a
visual guy and reading doesn't always stick in my head, I need to see and
then test, hopefully it blows up, so I actually learn..
>
> Thanks..
>
> Thomas Larus <tlarus@cox.net> wrote:
> The advice on this thread has been great! Do whatever makes sense to you
> and will make it easiest for you to see at a glance what is going on. I
> would go further and say that, for the purposes of CCIE preparation, you
> might want to form habits of using the same numbers for your EIGRP AS and
> OSPF process (where these values are not prescribed for you).
>
> For example, if your OSPF process is always 64 and your EIGRP AS number is
> always 20, that makes troubleshooting your practice labs much easier than
if
> you choose different numbers on the fly and have to remember what number
> stood for what. When using tagging and route-maps to prevent route
feedback
> when doing mutual redistribution, I like to tag the routes with the number
I
> associate with their source routing domain. This facilitates
> troubleshooting somewhat.
>
> Of course, you need to be prepared to deviate from your habit if ordered
to
> do so, but it's very helpful to have customary ways of doing things in
> practice labs.
>
> Tom Larus, CCIE #10,014
> Author of CCIE Warm-Up: Advice and Learning Labs
>
> http://www.ipexpert.com/products_services/product.asp?sku=ip7777
> tlarus@ipexpert.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelley Alan"
> To: "John Smith" ;
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:51 AM
> Subject: RE: Question on NetMasterClass DoIT lab posted previously to
> groupstudy.
>
>
> > John,
> >
> > I would say that it doesn't matter if you use s0/0.1 or s0/0.123. It
> > doesn't really matter. In the DoIt labs they use s0/0.123 for
> > reference to the network that the sub interface is associated to. So
> > using s0/0.123 is not a bad idea. If the network was 172.16.54.0 then
> > using s0/0.54 is a good idea so that you remember when looking at it
> > or if you need to go into the sub interface for configuration then you
> > don't have to do a show run to see what sub interface number you used.
> >
> > As for the priority command, if you set the spokes to 0 then they will
> > never become DR and do not have to make any changes to the Hub. No
> > need in changing the hub to a higher priority than the default since
> > it is the only router that can be the DR. Remember (KISS)!! Keep it
> > simple stupid!! :-) Not calling you stupid of course, just a phrase!!
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Smith [mailto:c00per_omers1@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:50 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Question on NetMasterClass DoIT lab posted previously to
> > groupstudy.
> >
> > I saw a posting early this week or late last week showing the link for
> > the free DoIT lab, from NetMasterClass. They have some Frame-Relay
> > and OSPF setup conditions in their doc. My question is from a CCIE lab
> > perspective...
> >
> > If they say ( as in the DoIT lab under OSPF ), use logical interfaces
> > they then show the final cfg of interface serial s0/0.# as serial
> > s0/0.123 I can understand how they got it, but I would have used
> > s0/0.1 or s0/0.2 so I'm wondering would the actual CCIE lab give you
> > the interface number or would we have to guess. What would you choose
> > to do, would you label it s0/0.123 the network number as indicated
> > 123.1 / 123.2 and 123.3 or would you label it so/o.1. I do realize
> > that the routers are 1,2 and 3 and this could be the convention as
> > this subinterface points to R2 and R3 from R1. Any opinions, or
> > insight?
> >
> > The next question has to do with Ip ospf priority. Looking at the cfg
> > they indicate under OSPF - elect R1 as DR. The final cfg shows the
> > spokes set as 0 and nothing set on the hub, so it is using the default
> > value. Would you all just set it on the spokes and not bother with
> > specifically setting the Hub as it would not have a priority of 0 or
> > would you set it as a number larger than the default setting? If they
> > said using minimum cfg, then I'd say don't set the hub, but I don't
> > remember reading that condition in this doc.
> >
> > Anyone have any opinions on this?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
> > from:
> > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:53:07 GMT-3