Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

RIPv1 --> OSPF migration

Hello people

First of all i wish you a happy new year.

If you have some free time to spare, take a look at the text below and

let me know.

################################################################################

Our campus network is built on two different backbones.

An ATM LANE backbone and an FDDI backbone. The ATM LANE is soon

expected to be

changed into an ATM CLIP backboneand a new border router (probably

7600) will be added. The

latter will only be connected to the ATM backbone, which is in turn

built on 4 LS1010 ATM

switches.

At the present we are running RIPv1 on both backbones. The routing

schema imposes

the following restrictions/rules (we note that as "FDDI routers" we

mean 2 routers that are ONLY

connected to the FDDI backbone, as "ATM routers" we mean 2 routers that

are ONLY connected to

the ATM backbone and as "central routers" we mean 3 routers that are

connected to BOTH

backbones. All router interfaces-ethernet actually-except for ATM and

FDDI ones are configured

NOT to receive or sent routing updates):

1. "Packets" travelling within the same backbone (ATM or FDDI) are

routed by their corresponding

routers, ie the routers that are connected to the ethernets where the

source and destination hosts of

the "packets" are connected to.

2. "Packets" travelling from one backbone to another are routed by

a specific "central router", or, in case of this

routers' failure by another, or, in case of this routers' failure by

the third one.

3. There is no asymmetric routing.

We intend to change the routing protocoll to OSPF, while retaining this

routing scheme.

Until now we have been tuning the metrics in the outgoing routes.

What we want to achieve is to enable OSPF on the routers with a

distance of 250 and check the

OSPF databases to see if the schema is retained.

SO:

----

Should we use 2 areas? One for FDDI and one for ATM?

What kind of tuning should we perform in order to retain the scheme?

Could you propose a plan for the configuration?

#################################################################################

I'm not sure which solution would be the most appropriate for this

issue.

Thank you for reading this,

Best Regards ,

ilias

2 REPLIES
New Member

Re: RIPv1 --> OSPF migration

Migration needs careful planning.

One comment here is that area designation in OSPF is not based on media. It is based on topolgy. Suggestions:

1) Have a target OSPF topolgy. Consider maybe having the "common area" between the two backbones as area 0, with other areas attached accordingly.

2) Have a traditional implementation step-by-step plan. With each step having "expected" and "actual" result. Each group of steps should have a "evaluate and back up" point if you are in a sensitive production environment.

It's a good idea having OSPF with higher distance, just to check the database. Then you can have phased migration of area by area, starting with area 0, of course.

I believe there's a Cisco guide on rip->OSPF coexistence and migration.

Good luck.

New Member

Re: RIPv1 --> OSPF migration

132
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies