[89629] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mutual Redistribution
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Wed Mar 29 03:17:33 2006
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:46:49 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@fa1c52f96c54f7450e1ffb215f29991e.nosense.org>
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: glen.kent@gmail.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4429ACAC.7040807@ttec.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:37:48 -0500
Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > One better
> > solution is to take advantage of route tags or labels. When a route is
> > redistributed you tag it, and then when mutual redistribution occurs in
> > the other direction, you exclude routes that have that tag. You'd need
> > to do this in both redistribution directions, with different tags to
> > prevent loops in either direction. This method doesn't rely on the
> > behaviour of always increase metrics, so it would be more robust.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Mark.
> >
> I dont believe popular vendors implementations of rip propogate tags.
>
> At least the last time I tried loop prevention with that, it didnt work.
Did it happen to be RIPv1 ? Only RIPv2 supports route tags.
--
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
alert."
- Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
