And is the cost from that third router to E.F.G.H higher than 8? Page 21 of RFC 2178 includes this passage:
�When several equal-cost Type 2 routes exist, the internal distance to the advertising router is used to break the tie.� It also includes this interesting tidbit: �Both Type 1 and Type 2 external metrics can be present in the AS at the same time. In that event, Type 1 external metrics always takes precedence.� This is contrary to what you will read in at least one Cisco Press book. It does make more sense to me that Type 1 would be preferred. The fact that internal cost is used to break the tie at first glance makes a Type 2 look an awful lot like a Type 1. The RFC addresses the issue. Basically, it says that when using Type 2, it�s assumed that routing between AS�s is the greatest cost. The internal cost is insignificant relative to the cost of moving the packet out of the AS. A Type 2 metric is said to be �an order of magnitude larger.� I guess this makes it a whole new class of metric that is allowed to be considered larger, without needing to have outrageously high numbers. A Type 2 metric of 20 would represent a higher cost than would a Type 1 metric of 100. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55317&t=55291 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
