Which two mechanisms avoid suboptimal routing in a network with dynamic mutual redistribution between multiple OSPFv2 and EIGRP boundaries? (Choose two.)
Which two mechanisms avoid suboptimal routing in a network with dynamic mutual redistribution between multiple OSPFv2 and EIGRP boundaries? (Choose two.)
To avoid suboptimal routing in a network with dynamic mutual redistribution between multiple OSPFv2 and EIGRP boundaries, two mechanisms can be used: AD (Administrative Distance) manipulation and route tagging. Administrative Distance manipulation ensures that the routes from one routing protocol are preferred over the other by changing their AD values, thus preventing suboptimal routing. Route tagging allows routers to mark the routes with certain tags when redistributing them between protocols, helping to identify and selectively manage these routes to avoid loops and suboptimal paths.
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/enhanced-interior-gateway-routing-protocol-eigrp/8606-redist.html
Same practice in CCE lab exam. If no filtering, why does need tagging?
with MULTIPLE OSPF and EIGRP boundaries you use route tagging to prevent routing loops and suboptimal routing https://bethepacketsite.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/redistribution-preventing-suboptimal-paths-using-route-tags/
https://www.ccexpert.us/routing-switching-2/mutual-redistribution-at-multiple-routers.html
no it is AD and route tagging
Answer is AE: I had to do this in the CCIE LAB and it's route tagging and/or manipulating the AD.
No AD manipulation. Why do you need to manipulate? The OSPF and EIGRP AD is different already
To solve this type of problem, the redistributing routers must have some awareness of which routes came from the other routing domain. In particular, the lower-AD routing protocol needs to decide which routes came from the higher-AD routing protocol, and either use a different AD for those routes or filter the routes. https://www.ccexpert.us/routing-switching-2/mutual-redistribution-at-multiple-routers.html