12

You can inject static routes into EIGRP two ways: The 'network' command 'redistribute static' You only need one or the other; here you've used both. It seems that the redistribution command takes precedence over the network command so the route is appearing as static routes. Remove 'redistribute static' and the route should appear as internal.


11

I don't guess there's any real reason it can't work just fine. You, of course, have the normal loss of information anytime you redistribute from one protocol into another, but there's an argument to be made that you get that when you use network statements as well, so that's kind of a wash. The main benefit that I see in this is that redistribution would ...


6

RFC 2328, OSPF Version 2 defines the Type 1 and Type 2 external metrics. Type 1 metrics are used if the primary cost is internal to your AS, but Type 2 metrics are used if the primary cost is external to your AS. OSPF supports two types of external metrics. Type 1 external metrics are expressed in the same units as OSPF interface cost (i.e., in terms ...


5

Since Cisco controls the EIGRP spec, they automatically provide additional information to BGP when EIGRP is advertised/redistributed into an MPLS VPN. This excerpt from Cisco's MPLS VPN support for EIGRP page gives the following details (emphasis mine): EIGRP Connectivity Between VPN Client Sites over a Service Provider Backbone In Figure 1, the EIGRP ...


4

By default redistribution of IBGP into an IGP is disabled. To redistribute IBGP routes into an IGP, you need the command bgp redistribute-internal. Configuring this on B will inject BGP routes into ISIS. router bgp 65000 bgp redistribute-internal More info here:https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/xr12000/software/xr12k_r3-9/routing/...


4

First, does R3 support BGP and does it have enough RAM to support all the routes on R1 and R2? If not, then BGP isn't an option. Second, do R1 and R2 receive a full Internet routing table? If so, then redistributing several 100k routes into OSPF would not be wise if at all possible. In this case I'd recommend using iBGP. On the other hand, if R1 and R2 ...


4

Especially with China, you'd have to cope with the GFW, rendering reasonable data exchange unreliable at best and impossible at worst. We've pretty much given up working seriously with China on a technical basis. Everything else is "just" a matter of bandwidth and latency.


3

VPC isn't really relevant here. All SVI's (whether mapped to a VPC peer link, some other random trunk or just a bunch of access ports) end up with the same bandwidth value by default. You can adjust it manually or, indeed, you can set the derived value your IGP uses (...if applicable) but there is no automatic correlation between the underlying physical ...


3

R12 is an ASBR. It's the only one flooding Type 5 LSAs.


3

There is no specific discovery for border routers. You need to understand more about OSPF and the LSAs which it advertises. Every router in an area knows the complete topology of the area in which it resides, so every router knows by the LSAs it receives which routers in its area are border routers, and which routers are not border routers. All OSPF ...


3

If R1 and R2 holds full internet routing table answer is never. Only default route should redistributed towards OSPF in some occasions maybe you would need to redistribute certain prefixes into OSPF but you need to have a good reason for that. You need to remember that every time a network is deleted or added, an SPF recalculation happen. Dijkstra's ...


3

ONU is the IEEE term while ONT is the ITU-T term. Both mean the same thing.


3

I think you are misunderstanding a fundamental concept of routing protocols. Routing protocols do not route packets. They exchange routing information (reachability) with other routers. You run a routing protocol on two or more routers so they can exchange routing information. If you only have one router, you don't need a rotuing protocol, because there ...


3

You are correct to attempt your filtering on a ABR router ospf 1 ... distribute-list route-map RMAPDENYEIGRP in The distribute-list command above does not stop the propagation of OSPF LSA's in your network. It only prevents the installation of the routes in the route table. If you look at your OSPF database, you will see that the LSAs are still there ...


3

It is hard to tell from your description and lack of sh run from the other two routers, but I believe this portion of the configuration is the problem: ip route 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 124.29.242.38 This should be a default route statement. Currently it is routing packets with the destination IP address of 0.0.0.0 only instead of acting as a default route....


2

What roughly I understand is, advertising route from one vrf table to other. In the context of MPLS, yes. Or, leaking from the global table into one or more VRFs. It is also used in other places, e.g., IS-IS. What type of routes (static, connected, dynamic routes) can be leaked from one vrf to another ? Anything in the routing table. And why do we ...


2

The network statement functions differently in OSPF and BGP. In BGP, the network statement specifies which networks in the routing table will be advertised to BGP peers. In contrast, in OSPF the network statement specifies which router interfaces are included in the OSPF domain (and in which area). It would be helpful to see your full configurations (and ...


2

With any supplier, you also have to consider commercial and legal constraints; when those suppliers are in a different country, even more so. If the data is originating in the European Union, there are numerous data privacy obligations which specifically cover sending certain kinds of information outside the EU. (See for example General Data Protection ...


1

It is only a problem if you have more than one mutual redistribution router. In that case you will likely create a routing loop. In larger networks there may be more than one router redistributing between two routing domains (in this case, BGP and OSPF). If R1 and R2 are both doing mutual redistribution, a problem can occur when R1 redistributes OSPF ...


1

Mutual redistribution can be dangerous because you can get in a situation where each routing protocol gets back through redistribution the same routes it already had. One way around this for Cisco routers is to tag the routes, and not redistribute some routes based on tags. BGP doesn't have tags, but you can set communities based on the tags to accomplish ...


1

You'll want to find some devices or software that are designed to establish VPN connections and read the documentation for how to set it up. Many networks use the network firewall as a VPN endpoint. You purchase and configure firewalls for each of your locations and configure VPNs between the locations. Product recommendations are off-topic here, so you'll ...


1

When one routing protocol is being redistributed into another, the router doesn't have a way to translate the routing metric from one routing protocol into another. Statics also fall in this category. There are a couple of ways to redistribute statics: 1) network command http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/enhanced-interior-gateway-routing-...


1

Based on your comment: I'm trying to prevent any routes with a tag of 12000 from being redistributed into the MPLS. Any routes redistributed into OSPF from EIGRP will be OSPF external routes. It is easy to redistribute only internal routes from OSPF into BGP: router bgp 100 redistribute ospf 1 ! Alternatively, you can use a route map to match a tag ...


1

Are you looking at two different routes? Maybe a /24 and a /23? In general a protocol can only redistribute what is already in the routing table. If you make a static route that matches the prefix of a connected interface the connected interface will be in the routing table and not the static. That would force the static to not placed into EIGRP (since it ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible