scsabir@tvgurus.hdtv.zenithe.com (Andrew Birner) (05/07/91)
I was all set to implement my wide-area network using IGRP; now that Novell has released NetWare 386 v3.11, which uses RIP in its TCP/IP implementation, I fear I have to revisit the routing issue. The problem, for me, is that Novell just dumped about a dozen RIP-based routers onto my network; I need a way to deal with them. My choices seem to be: (1) run IGRP on the WAN, and force the Net- Ware routers to use their local cisco box for a default route; or (2) run RIP everywhere. Option (2) appears easier to deal with, since there are no static routes to deal with; it is also more consistent. However, IGRP (and OSPF) is a better routing protocol than RIP. My network is simple enough now that I would probably have no trouble running as a RIP-based net; that may change, though, so I don't want to shoot myself in the foot by choosing RIP. (Does any- one know of an IGRP or OSPF implementation for NetWare v3.11....) Anyway, I'd appreciate any comments on or solutions to this dilemma; thanks in advance for any and all helpful input. - Andrew E. Birner, Zenith Electronics Corporation -
fortinp@bwdls56.bnr.ca (Pierre Fortin) (05/07/91)
In article <34800@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, scsabir@tvgurus.hdtv.zenithe.com (Andrew Birner) writes: |> |> I was all set to implement my wide-area network using IGRP; now that Novell has |> released NetWare 386 v3.11, which uses RIP in its TCP/IP implementation, I fear |> I have to revisit the routing issue. The problem, for me, is that Novell just |> dumped about a dozen RIP-based routers onto my network; I need a way to deal |> with them. My choices seem to be: (1) run IGRP on the WAN, and force the Net- |> Ware routers to use their local cisco box for a default route; or (2) run RIP |> everywhere. Option (2) appears easier to deal with, since there are no static |> routes to deal with; it is also more consistent. However, IGRP (and OSPF) is |> a better routing protocol than RIP. My network is simple enough now that I |> would probably have no trouble running as a RIP-based net; that may change, |> though, so I don't want to shoot myself in the foot by choosing RIP. (Does any- |> one know of an IGRP or OSPF implementation for NetWare v3.11....) |> Anyway, I'd appreciate any comments on or solutions to this dilemma; thanks in |> advance for any and all helpful input. |> Check the cisco manual for "redistribute" and "default-metric" (router) subcommands. We have set up our network (over 260 subnets) with IGRP. Most devices use Proxy ARP to gain access to remote devices. However, for those devices which can't use Proxy ARP, we redistribute the IGRP routes into RIP with a default-metric of 8 (hey, you can pick anything you want as long as it doesn't result in RIP-unreachables...:) Note that cisco also allows redistributing RIP into IGRP, but *don't* do it unless you want to chase flapping route problems when your network becomes larger and more complex. The last thing you'll think of checking for is that new router/link... :( The point is: use IGRP within the network, then send RIP routing packets out on your Ether interfaces, but *don't* listen to those same RIP updates on a neighbouring router. You'll get IGRP metrics squished into RIP's 16 and expanded back out to one of 16 IGRP values. This action is responsible for some route flapping is a complex network topology. Another (router) command you should be aware of is "passive-interface"; it can be used to eliminate redundant (non-IGRP) updates from wasting bandwidth on your serial links (and possibly some ether ports). |> - Andrew E. Birner, Zenith Electronics Corporation - -- Cheers, Pierre Fortin fortinp@bnr.ca (613)763-2598
tcs@uunet.UU.NET (Terry Slattery) (05/08/91)
> I was all set to implement my wide-area network using IGRP; now that Novell has >released NetWare 386 v3.11, which uses RIP in its TCP/IP implementation, I fear >I have to revisit the routing issue. The problem, for me, is that Novell just >dumped about a dozen RIP-based routers onto my network; I need a way to deal >with them. My choices seem to be: (1) run IGRP on the WAN, and force the Net- >Ware routers to use their local cisco box for a default route; or (2) run RIP >everywhere. Option (2) appears easier to deal with, since there are no static >routes to deal with; it is also more consistent. However, IGRP (and OSPF) is >a better routing protocol than RIP. My network is simple enough now that I >would probably have no trouble running as a RIP-based net; that may change, >though, so I don't want to shoot myself in the foot by choosing RIP. (Does any- >one know of an IGRP or OSPF implementation for NetWare v3.11....) > Anyway, I'd appreciate any comments on or solutions to this dilemma; thanks in >advance for any and all helpful input. > >- Andrew E. Birner, Zenith Electronics Corporation - Andrew, There's no magic bullet to solve your problem. With either IGRP or OSPF, you must use RIP as the intermediate system (ie router) to end system (ie host) routing protocol. With either of these protocols, you'll need to import RIP routes learned from the Novell routers and redistribute IGRP (OSPF) routes via RIP to the Novell routers. Your option (2) is certainly the simplest thing for the time being, then you can use one router as a test system for designing the redistribution mechanism you'll need for OSPF or IGRP. The redistribution mechanism will pick up IGRP (OSPF) routes, and convert them into RIP routes with a fixed metric (probably 1 or 2). Similarly, the RIP information you receive from the Novell routers will need to be redistributed via IGRP (OSPF). If the Novell routers don't do split horizon in their RIP implementation, you'll need to build some filters to discard your IGRP (OSPF) routes from the Novell RIP updates. There are a couple of alternatives. You can use static routes in IGRP (OSPF) for the appropriate Novell routers for each network they service. And you can have the cisco's source a RIP default route so that the Novell routers dynamically learn of their default router. -tcs
scsabir@tvgurus.hdtv.zenithe.com (Andrew Birner) (05/08/91)
I left out one small (hah!) detail in my original posting on this subject: We are a Class B network, subnetted as class C; the WAN portion of our net connects subnets of our Class B net. According to the Gateway System Manual (the Nov. 90 version, for 8.2), page 5-59: The redistribution mechanism is not supported for subnets. Only routing information about entire networks can be exchanged in this manner. I take this to mean that I can't simply redistribute the IGRP routes via RIP to my NetWare router processes. I may be wrong, though; I'm rather new to this game. Thanks to all who've responded thus far; I appreciate the input. - Andrew E. Birner, Zenith Electronics Corporation -
tli@cisco.com (Tony Li) (05/08/91)
From: scsabir@tvgurus.hdtv.zenithe.com (Andrew Birner)
I left out one small (hah!) detail in my original posting on this
subject: We are a Class B network, subnetted as class C; the WAN
portion of our net connects subnets of our Class B net. According
to the Gateway System Manual (the Nov. 90 version, for 8.2), page 5-59:
The redistribution mechanism is not supported for subnets. Only
routing information about entire networks can be exchanged in
this manner.
I take this to mean that I can't simply redistribute the IGRP
routes via RIP to my NetWare router processes. I may be wrong,
though; I'm rather new to this game. Thanks to all who've
responded thus far; I appreciate the input.
The manual is wrong or at the very least incredibly unclear. You can
redistribute subnet information into RIP. The correct paragraph
should read something like:
Subnet information can only be redistributed into protocols
which support subnet information.
Thanks, we'll fix the manual.
Tonyjnford@argos.weeg.uiowa.edu (Jay Ford) (05/08/91)
In article <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, tli@cisco.com (Tony Li) writes: |> The manual is wrong or at the very least incredibly unclear. You can |> redistribute subnet information into RIP. The correct paragraph |> should read something like: |> |> Subnet information can only be redistributed into protocols |> which support subnet information. |> |> Thanks, we'll fix the manual. |> |> Tony Does this mean that I can run IGRP and RIP simultaneously on my class B net, and redistribute routes between the two protocols? We have a broadband campus backbone with cisco routers, as well as many other things which do routing but only do RIP. I'd like to run IGRP between the ciscos but still have them converse with the other routers via RIP. Actually I'd like to run OSPF everywhere, but that will have to wait a while. Heck, there are still systems (e.g. IBM) which don't do dynamic routing at all, but at least they all do subnetting now (I think). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jay Ford, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 jnford@handlebar.weeg.uiowa.edu, 319-335-5555
oleary@sura.net (dave o'leary) (05/08/91)
In article <5955@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jnford@handlebar.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: >In article <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, tli@cisco.com (Tony Li) writes: >|> The manual is wrong or at the very least incredibly unclear. You can >|> redistribute subnet information into RIP. The correct paragraph >|> should read something like: >|> >|> Subnet information can only be redistributed into protocols >|> which support subnet information. >|> >|> Thanks, we'll fix the manual. >|> >|> Tony > >Does this mean that I can run IGRP and RIP simultaneously on my class B net, >and redistribute routes between the two protocols? Yes, you *can* do this, however, as has been pointed out on several occasions, feedback between two different routing protocols running in parallel using different systems of metrics can cause interesting meltdowns, as has been observed during various OSPF-RIP experiments :-) >We have a broadband campus >backbone with cisco routers, as well as many other things which do routing but >only do RIP. I'd like to run IGRP between the ciscos but still have them >converse with the other routers via RIP. > If you can run separate RIP routing domains connected by IGRP domains or vice versa it will make your life easier... >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Jay Ford, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 >jnford@handlebar.weeg.uiowa.edu, 319-335-5555 dave o'leary, SURAnet NOC Mgr. 301-982-3214
johnk@gordian.com (John Kalucki) (05/09/91)
In article <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, tli@cisco.com (Tony Li) writes: |> |> [...] |> The manual is wrong or at the very least incredibly unclear. You can |> redistribute subnet information into RIP. The correct paragraph |> should read something like: |> [...] |> |> Tony Does cisco's implementation of rip allow for multiple subnet masks per network? The rfc on rip (1058) doesn't mention this, but subseqent rfc's imply that rip could handle multiple subnet masks. -John Kalucki jonhk@gordian.com
oleary@sura.net (dave o'leary) (05/10/91)
In article <133@gordius.gordian.com> johnk@gordian.com (John Kalucki) writes: >In article <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, tli@cisco.com (Tony Li) writes: >|> [stuff that isn't really relevant to this questions and answer] > >Does cisco's implementation of rip allow for multiple subnet masks per network? >The rfc on rip (1058) doesn't mention this, but subseqent rfc's imply that >rip could handle multiple subnet masks. > > -John Kalucki > jonhk@gordian.com RIP doesn't know anything about subnet masks. This is one of its fundamental limitations. Developing an implementation that knew about subnet masks would make it non-interoperable - pretty nuch the most useful feature of RIP... dave o'leary, SURAnet NOC Mgr. (301)982-3214 oleary@sura.net