Re: [nsp] Redistribution into OSPF

From: George Robbins (grr@shandakor.tharsis.com)
Date: Fri May 11 2001 - 16:37:49 EDT


Whether you want to redist mostly depends on what you want to happen
when interfaces go up or down, and the ability of your network to
reconverge (fairly) promptly after the routing changes.

If nobody is relying on the IGP for multi-homing, it probably doesn't
matter. If they are, you need to redistribute something. You probably
don't want to redistribute into your EGP, since flapping is punishable.

one case:

redist connected into ospf
redist static excluding /32's into ospf (optional)
us null-routed static aggregates with geographic mapping
don't redist into bgp
use bgp network statments for aggregates

it's mostly a question of what skeleton is needed to make your network
work vs. how much hair you want to pull out when it goes weird. 8-)

                                                        George

> From cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net Fri May 11 16:18:57 2001
> Resent-Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:18:46 -0400
> Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:15:59 -0400
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:16:16 +0200
> From: Gert Doering <gert@greenie.muc.de>
> To: Mehgan Laveck <mehganl@frii.com>, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] Redistribution into OSPF
> References: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0105111252110.38214-100000@elara.frii.com>
> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0105111252110.38214-100000@elara.frii.com>; from Mehgan Laveck on Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:02:54PM -0400
> X-mgetty-docs: http://alpha.greenie.net/mgetty/
> Resent-From: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> X-Mailing-List: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> archive/latest/6289
> X-Loop: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:02:54PM -0400, Mehgan Laveck wrote:
> > I recently read in IOS Essentials that redistributing connected interfaces
> > and static routes into an IGP is not recommended. There are good reasons
> > for not doing this, including the fact that OSPF sees these routes as
> > type external. My question is, how are people distributing these routes
> > to the rest of the network?
>
> We're happily distributing static (into OSPF and EIGRP).
>
> I do not redistribute connected, because the bug list concerning EIGRP
> and redistribute connected at the time I designed this was "scary". I
> redistribute those by using "network" statement in the "router eigrp"
> block.
>
> gert
>
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025 gert.doering@physik.tu-muenchen.de
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:37 EDT