Go CCIE Go!! - A Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert

I remember this scenario from IE. There are two points of mutual redistribution between RIP and OSPF. Did you tag the routes being redistributed on both R1 and R3? I know the solution guide just tagged them “110″ and “120″, but I tagged them 1110, 1120, 3110, and 3120, so I could jump on SW2 and do a show ip route x.x.x.x and see the tag nice and easily. It helps track down if you have leakage where you don’t expect it.
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. –Carl Sagan
> From: huan.pham@valuenet.com.au > To: nhatphuc@gmail.com > CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com > Subject: RE: Can’t filter prefix longer than 24 from OSPF to RIP > Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:45:05 +1100 > > Hi, > > It looks like that R1 already learnt about those subnets via RIP as well. > (including the one with subnets more than 25). > > Your config tells that R1 can only advertise RIP routes via Fa0/0, all other > interfaces are passive, this does not prevent R1 from receiving RIP routes > from other passive interfaces. > > > > router rip > > > version 2 > > > redistribute ospf 1 metric 1 route-map OSPF->RIP > > > passive-interface default > > > no passive-interface FastEthernet0/0 > > Could you pls disable redistribution from OSPF to RIP, and do show ip route, > or show ip rip database, and see if those routes you want to filter already > exist in your RIP table. > > router rip > version 2 > no redistribute ospf 1 metric 1 route-map OSPF->RIP > > Cheers, > > Huan > —–Original Message—– > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of > nhatphuc > Sent: Monday, 31 December 2007 11:24 PM > To: Gary Duncanson > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com > Subject: Re: Can’t filter prefix longer than 24 from OSPF to RIP > > See my answer below > > Thanks > Phuc > > On Dec 31, 2007 5:51 PM, Gary Duncanson > wrote: > > > Hi Phuc, > > > > Have you tried restarting the ospf process or clear ip route on SW2? > > > SW2 and R1 run RIP and I tried “clear ip route *” on SW2 > > > > > > > Can SW2 receive these routes from somewhere other than R1 perhaps? > > > I don’t think so because the next hop is from 163.1.18.1 > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: “nhatphuc” > > To: “Cisco certification” > > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:08 AM > > Subject: Can’t filter prefix longer than 24 from OSPF to RIP > > > > > > > HI Group, > > > > > > Please help why I can’t filter prefix longer than 24 redistributed into > > > RIP > > > from OSPF: > > > > > > This is my config: > > > > > > R1 > > > > > > router rip > > > version 2 > > > redistribute ospf 1 metric 1 route-map OSPF->RIP > > > passive-interface default > > > no passive-interface FastEthernet0/0 > > > network 163.1.0.0 > > > no auto-summary > > > ! > > > ip forward-protocol nd > > > ! > > > ip http server > > > no ip http secure-server > > > ! > > > ip prefix-list NOT_LONGER24 seq 5 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 24 > > > ! > > > route-map OSPF->RIP permit 10 > > > match ip address prefix-list NOT_LONGER24 > > > > > > DEBUG IP RIP on R1: > > > > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via > > > FastEthernet0/0 (163.1.18.1) > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: RIP: build update entries > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 10.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.2.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.3.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.4.0/23 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.4.4/32 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.5.5/32 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.6.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.7.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 150.1.8.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.0.0/25 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.0.128/25 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.3.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.4.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > Rack1R1# > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.5.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.6.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.7.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.12.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.13.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.13.3/32 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.15.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.35.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.38.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.45.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.45.5/32 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.54.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: RIP: build update entries > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 163.1.57.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 192.10.1.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > *Dec 31 17:42:39.209: 204.12.1.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 > > > > > > SW2 still see route longer than 24 from R1 (163.1.18.1) > > > SW2# > > > R 204.12.1.0/24 [120/1] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 163.1.0.0/25 [120/4] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 163.1.6.0/24 [120/1] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 163.1.13.3/32 [120/4] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 163.1.12.0/24 [120/1] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 150.1.6.0/24 [120/4] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 150.1.3.0/24 [120/4] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 150.1.2.0/24 [120/1] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 150.1.5.5/32 [120/4] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:05, FastEthernet0/21 > > > R 150.1.4.4/32 [120/4] via 163.1.18.1, 00:00:05, FastEthernet0/21 > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Phuc > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > Subscription information may be found at: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
_________________________________________________________________ The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/wheretobuy/