We're Sorry, Full Content Access is for Members Only...

If you like to keep on reading, Become a Member Now! Here is Why:

  • Learn any CCNA, CCNP and CCIE R&S Topic. Explained As Simple As Possible.
  • Try for Just $1. The Best Dollar You've Ever Spent on Your Cisco Career!
  • Full Access to our 588 Lessons. More Lessons Added Every Week!
  • Content created by Rene Molenaar (CCIE #41726)

 

312 New Members signed up the last 30 days!

satisfaction-guaranteed

100% Satisfaction Guaranteed!
You may cancel your monthly membership at any time.
No Questions Asked!

Tags: , ,


Forum Replies

  1. Hi Rene,
    Your post is very informative bro...keep it up!!

    Would you please help me understand what you really mean by this rule #1?
    (Don’t advertise the tunnel destination IP address on the tunnel interface. Don’t advertise it or use route filtering.)

    What if you used the network connected to R2 as the destination IP? like:

    R1(config)#interface tunnel 1
    R1(config-if)#tunnel source fa0/0
    R1(config-if)#ip address 192.168.13.1 255.255.255.0
    R1(config-if)#tunnel destination 192.168.23.3

    -

    R3(config)#interface tunnel 1
    R3(config-if)#tunnel source Fa0/0
    R3(config-if)#ip address 192.168.13.3 255.255.255.0
    R3(config-if)#tunnel destination 192.168.12.1

    Would we still have the same RR issues?
    Please give me your comment
    Thanks.!

  2. hey Rene,

    i got you bro!! it's correct.

    but i'd off adding both the phys interface and the tunnel in my routing protocol and adjust the cost (higher) on the tunnel interface to deal with the issues. i am wrong?

  3. Hi Rene, thank you for the excellent post.

    And if I'm running OSPF instead of RIP, how could I solve this situation since my tunnel has a lower cost than my physical interfaces?

    I tried to filter the tunnel destination address (LSA3) with distribute-list IN on the tunnel interface, but it didn't work. Any idea?

    Thanks!

  4. I noticed the discussion of "what about this and that" concerning metric and AD changes.
    In my opinion you should NEVER need too, nor want too, advertise the tunnel destination networks thru the tunnel interface itself.
    So the only corrective action should be some type of filtering. There is no reason whatsoever to advertise that network back thru the tunnel interface as far as I can see. Makes no sense even with higher cost or AD.

27 more replies! Ask a question or join the discussion by visiting our Community Forum