Just looking for some confirmation for my brain on this one.
Let's say you have a network running OSPF on one side, and EIGRP on the other. There are two points of redistribution (for redundancy, lets call them ASBR1 and ASBR2) performing mutual redistribution (EIGRP into OSPF, and OSPF into EIGRP). This is controlled via distribution lists both ways to ensure OSPF sourced routes are not picked up in EIGRP and redistributed back into OSPF, etc, etc...
Let's say we add a static route in EIGRP and redistribute that. It becomes an external EIGRP route with an admin distance of 170 (along with the OSPF derived routes). We pick this up on the ASBR's, and happily redistribute this route into OSPF with it's default admin distance of 110.
Here's where the problem begins (i think)
Now we have an EIGRP static route floating around EIGRP with an admin distance of 170, and the same route floating around OSPF with an admin distance of 110. Due to OSPF's link state database, each point of redistribution MUST know about the other, hence these ASBR's both see the EIGRP sourced route, AND each others redistributed OSPF route for the same network, except now the OSPF route is preferred due to it's lower admin distance.
Does this make sense? Seems to only be a problem redistributing EIGRP external routes into OSPF, however there doesn't seem to be much info on it, and it seems to me this would be a fairly well documented issue. I've checked all the redistribution dox and not one mentions this could be a potential problem.
Use the distance command on each ASBR raising the admin distance on those EIGRP static networks to something higher than 170 so they prefer their EIGRP routes.
ie. ASBR1 would have the distance command configured to raise the admin distance on all external routes coming from it's neighbor ASBR2.
This is indeed an issue. The solution is as stated in the documentation you referred to, which is to raised the admin distance of OSPF external routes to something higher than 170. You have to be careful to to experience the same issue in the other direction if you redistribute external routes (coming from other sources than EIGRP) in EIGRP.
Hope this helps,
Harold Ritter Sr. Technical Leader CCIE 4168 (R&S, SP) email@example.com México móvil: +52 1 55 8312 4915 Cisco México Paseo de la Reforma 222 Piso 19 Cuauhtémoc, Juárez Ciudad de México, 06600 México
Another option would be to tag the route coming into OSPF, and then filter the tagged routes from the local routing table on the other ASBR on the OSPF side. You can also tag the routes on the EIGRP side, and deny them on the other EIGRP redistribution router, as well. For the OSPF side, see:
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...