This topic is to discuss the following lesson:
So we can use the “include connected” as opposed to the following command and it will have the same affect then right?
ipv6 router ospf 6 log-adjacency-changes redistribute rip RIPNG metric 1 ipv6 router rip RIPNG redistribute connected metric 1<-------- redistribute ospf 6 metric 1
That’s right. The “redistribute connected” will redistribute any directly connected interfaces into the routing protocol. It will also redistribute directly connected interfaces that are not advertised in any IPv6 routing protocol.
Thanks for reply, I found something interesting though. When setting up redistribution i didn’t have to add a metric command under ospf 6 and it worked fine, does this mean OSPFv3 adds a metric already? Because with no metric command under RIPNG, no routes will get redistributed.
ipv6 router ospf 6 log-adjacency-changes redistribute rip RIPNG include-connected <------ ! ipv6 router rip RIPNG redistribute ospf 6 metric 1 include-connected
What you have discovered is a difference in how those routing protocols deal with redistribution in general, as opposed to IPv6 specifically. It is interesting that Link-State protocols don’t require specifying a metric when redistributing into them. For example, OSPF assigns a default metric of “20” in this case, while IS-IS assigns a metric of zero.
Distance Vector protocols, however, like RIP and EIGRP require you to set some kind of seed metric, or they won’t be advertised.
Hi, I’d like to see (maybe I’m not finding it), an IPv6 redistribution example between BGP and IGPs.
I don’t have any lessons covering IPv6 BGP redistribution but it is pretty straight forward. Here’s a quick example to redistribute OSPFv3 routes into BGP:
R1(config)#router bgp 1 R1(config-router)#address-family ipv6 R1(config-router-af)#redistribute ospf 1