From: Fong, Eddy (Eddy.Fong@xxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 02:49:03 GMT-3
Can you reach 172.150.2.0 via virtual-access1 interface? Seems like this route
is not in R1 routing table. If you can't reach 172.150.2.0, you definitely won
't have 10.2.2.0 in R1 routing table according to EIGRP topology. Could you pos
t the configs? and output of sho ip int brie?
-----Original Message-----
From: mize [mailto:mize@netbuddy.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:43 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: EIGRP Topology Issue
Did you use physical interface at R2 and R5? Enable 'ip split-horizon' on those
interfaces so that the route 10.2.2.0/24 will not be advertisd back from R2.
>EIGRP auto-summary is off.
>
>MP
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mize" <mize@netbuddy.org>
>To: "chris@pacinter.net (Martin, Chris)" <chris@pacinter.net (Martin,
>Chris)>
>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:00 AM
>Subject: Re: Re: EIGRP Topology Issue
>
>
>> I think that's the point, turn off EIGRP auto-summary on R1 and everything
>will be fine.
>>
>> >in your route table you have a network statement of 10.0.0.0 for igrp,
>igrp
>> >has a lower administrative distance then eigrp redistribution, which
>would
>> >be external with a AD of 170, i beleive that may be the problem, or try
>> >clearing the route table, shutting the interface and bringing it back up
>> >again...
>> >HTH
>> >
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
>> >To: "Martin, Chris" <chris@pacinter.net>; "CCIE GROUPSTUDY"
>> ><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:11 PM
>> >Subject: Re: EIGRP Topology Issue
>> >
>> >
>> >> It does have the same mask as IGRP.
>> >>
>> >> r1----Frame----R2
>> >> |
>> >> Frame
>> >> |
>> >> R5
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 172.150.2.0/24 between R1 and R2
>> >> 172.150.1.0/24 between R1 and R5
>> >>
>> >> Loopback 0=10.2.2.2/24 on R2.
>> >>
>> >> R1 to R2 is EIGRP
>> >> R2 to R5 is IGRP
>> >>
>> >> Loopback 0 on R2 is redistributed via connected into EIGRP.
>> >>
>> >> 10.2.2.0/24 shows up in EIGRP topology on R1 but not routing table.
>> >>
>> >> 10.2.2.0/24 shows up in R5 routing table via IGRP from R1.
>> >> EIGRP and IGRP have same AS number so redistribution is happening on
>R1.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> MP
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Martin, Chris" <chris@pacinter.net>
>> >> To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>; "CCIE GROUPSTUDY"
>> >> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:03 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: EIGRP Topology Issue
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > it looks to me your running IGRP, from what the route table shows,
>and i
>> >> > would guess your loopback has a mask that doesnt match your outbound
>> >> > interface on the router running igrp.
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
>> >> > To: "CCIE GROUPSTUDY" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 2:21 PM
>> >> > Subject: EIGRP Topology Issue
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > I have a virtual-template connecting R1 and R2 over frame. On R2 I
>am
>> >> > getting
>> >> > > all the routes via EIGRP and I am redistributing connected with a
>> >> > route-map to
>> >> > > limit it to Loopback 0 network. The loopback 0 network on R2
>appears
>> >in
>> >> > the
>> >> > > EIGRP topology of R1 but not in the routing table.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Any ideas?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > TIA
>> >> > >
>> >> > > MP
>> >> > >
>> >> > > r1#sh ip eigrp topology
>> >> > > IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(100)/ID(192.168.100.1)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
>> >> > > r - reply Status, s - sia Status
>> >> > >
>> >> > > P 10.2.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 22688000
>> >> > > via 172.150.2.2 (22688000/128256), Virtual-Access1
>> >> > > P 10.0.0.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40640000
>> >> > > via Redistributed (40640000/0)
>> >> > > P 10.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
>> >> > > via Redistributed (128256/0)
>> >> > > P 10.20.20.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40512000
>> >> > > via Redistributed (40512000/0)
>> >> > > P 192.168.100.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
>> >> > > via Redistributed (128256/0)
>> >> > > P 172.150.8.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40537600
>> >> > > via Redistributed (40537600/0)
>> >> > > P 172.150.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 22560000
>> >> > > via Connected, Virtual-Access1
>> >> > > P 172.150.2.2/32, 1 successors, FD is 22560000
>> >> > > via Rconnected (22560000/0)
>> >> > > P 172.150.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40512000
>> >> > > via Redistributed (40512000/0)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > R1 routing table:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > r1#si
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Gateway of last resort is not set
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 172.150.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 4 subnets, 2 masks
>> >> > > I 172.150.8.0/24 [100/158350] via 172.150.1.5, 00:01:24,
>Serial0
>> >> > > C 172.150.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0
>> >> > > 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 4 subnets
>> >> > > I 10.0.0.0 [100/158750] via 172.150.1.5, 00:01:24, Serial0
>> >> > > C 10.20.20.0 is directly connected, Serial0
>> >> > > C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
>> >> > > C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0
>> >> > > C 192.168.100.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:26 GMT-3