Routes redistribution and Administrative distance manipulation

I've seen the great example of problems with 2-way redistribution of routes between OSPF and RIP.

When we redistributing routes from RIP domain to OSPF on both P3R1 and P3R2, the curious thing happens. Let's say redistribution is configured on P3R1, then P3R2 will have only OSPF routes in it's routing table. The routes from RIP domain will have next-hop IP address on s0/0/0 interface of P3R1! Even loopback address on directly connected P3R4! This situation, of course, leads to suboptimal routing decisions.
One of the ways to fix the problem is to change administrative distance of OSPF routes learned via redistribution. We can rise the AD of these routes to make them appear less attractive then native RIP routes. In this way, native RIP routes will appear in the routing table instead of redistributed into OSPF routes.

hostname P3R2
!
router ospf 1
redistribute rip metric 10000 metric-type 1 subnets
network 172.31.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 0
distance 125 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 64
!
router rip
version 2
redistribute ospf 1 metric 5
network 10.0.0.0
no auto-summary
!
access-list 64 permit 10.3.1.0
access-list 64 permit 10.3.3.0
access-list 64 permit 10.3.2.0
access-list 64 permit 10.200.200.31
access-list 64 permit 10.200.200.32
access-list 64 permit 10.200.200.33
access-list 64 permit 10.200.200.34

Now the router will keep original AD of all native OSPF routes, except routes redistributed from OSPF(these routes will have AD of 125 > than native RIP routes).

The most important feature of using administrative distance to control route preference is that no path information is lost; in this example, the OSPF information is still in the OSPF database. If the primary path (via the RIP routes) is lost, the OSPF path reasserts itself, and the router maintains connectivity with those networks.

P.S. Routes must be in the routing table for them to be redistributed.