From: Tony H. (aamercado31@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 18 2002 - 21:33:53 GMT-3
In regards to the eigrp route on R11, I think the
technote below might give some insight. Unfortunately
it doesn't provide insight on the 2nd half (removal of
OSPF from E0/0 on R10):
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrp4.html#3
There are two caveats with EIGRP/IGRP redistribution
within the same autonomous system:
Internal EIGRP routes are always preferred over
external EIGRP or IGRP routes.
External EIGRP route metrics are compared to scaled
IGRP metrics (the administrative distance is ignored).
--- "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)"
<dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com> wrote:
> OK guys,
>
> .100, .111 and .222 - are loopbacks on R11 - It's
> irrelevant.
> I just forgot to remove it from previous test :)
> Yesterday when I got this problem I didn't have
> these loopbacks.
>
> Ok, I removed any feedback from the picture and left
> only one-way redist on
> R10:
> Now R9---(igrp)---R10(redist
> IGRP-->OSPF,EIGRP)---R11 (OSPF, EIGRP)
>
> The result is the same !!! D EX routes on R11.
> (I even reload routers :o)
>
> router eigrp 10
> network 172.16.0.0
> !
> router ospf 10
> redistribute igrp 10 subnets
> network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> network 172.16.5.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> !
> router igrp 10
> no redistribute eigrp 10
> passive-interface Ethernet1/0
> network 172.16.0.0
>
> 172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 8 subnets
> C 172.16.222.0 is directly connected,
> Loopback2
> D EX 172.16.4.0 [170/435200] via 172.16.5.2,
> 00:00:21, Ethernet0
> C 172.16.5.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
> D 172.16.1.0 [90/307200] via 172.16.5.2,
> 00:00:21, Ethernet0
> D EX 172.16.2.0 [170/435200] via 172.16.5.2,
> 00:00:21, Ethernet0
> D EX 172.16.3.0 [170/435200] via 172.16.5.2,
> 00:00:21, Ethernet0
> C 172.16.111.0 is directly connected,
> Loopback1
> C 172.16.100.0 is directly connected,
> Loopback0
> r11#sh ip ei
> r11#sh ip ospf nei
>
> Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time
> Address Interface
> 172.16.5.2 1 FULL/DR 00:00:36
> 172.16.5.2 Ethernet0
> r11#sh ip ospf data
>
> OSPF Router with ID (172.16.222.1) (Process
> ID 10)
>
>
> Router Link States (Area 0)
>
> Link ID ADV Router Age Seq#
> Checksum Link count
> 172.16.5.2 172.16.5.2 53
> 0x80000002 0xC778 2
> 172.16.222.1 172.16.222.1 52
> 0x80000002 0x1538 4
>
> Net Link States (Area 0)
>
> Link ID ADV Router Age Seq#
> Checksum
> 172.16.5.2 172.16.5.2 53
> 0x80000001 0x133F
>
> Type-5 AS External Link States
>
> Link ID ADV Router Age Seq#
> Checksum Tag
> 172.16.1.0 172.16.5.2 263
> 0x80000001 0x9589 0
> 172.16.2.0 172.16.5.2 145
> 0x80000001 0xD18D 0
> 172.16.3.0 172.16.5.2 145
> 0x80000001 0xC697 0
> 172.16.4.0 172.16.5.2 145
> 0x80000001 0xBBA1 0
> 172.16.5.0 172.16.5.2 263
> 0x80000001 0x69B1 0
> r11#sh ip eig
> r11#sh ip eigrp top
> IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(10)/ID(172.16.222.1)
>
> Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q -
> Query, R - Reply,
> r - reply Status, s - sia Status
>
> P 172.16.222.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
> via Connected, Loopback2
> P 172.16.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
> via 172.16.5.2 (435200/409600), Ethernet0
> P 172.16.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 281600
> via Connected, Ethernet0
> P 172.16.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 307200
> via 172.16.5.2 (307200/281600), Ethernet0
> P 172.16.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
> via 172.16.5.2 (435200/409600), Ethernet0
> P 172.16.3.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
> via 172.16.5.2 (435200/409600), Ethernet0
> P 172.16.111.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
> via Connected, Loopback1
> P 172.16.100.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
> via Connected, Loopback0
> r11#
> ==========
>
> Dmitry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mingzhou Nie [mailto:mnie@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 5:11 PM
> To: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE); 'yakout yakout';
> Colin Barber
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Are EIGRP external routes preferable
> than OSPF ext ??
>
>
> just curious. Which router is 172.16.222.1. and
> where do
> > 172.16.100.0 172.16.5.2 119
> 0x80000001 0xCB2D 0
> > 172.16.111.0 172.16.5.2 119
> 0x80000001 0x529B 0
> > 172.16.222.0 172.16.5.2 120
> 0x80000001 0x88F5 0
> come from?
>
> You must have another router hanging in OSPF.
>
> --- "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)"
> <dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Tried to put the same config again.
> > At the beginning I got the same as Yakout, but
> after clear ip ro * on
> > R11
> > I got D EX routes.
> >
> > Colin is right.
> > If we change eigrp internal distance on R11 higher
> than 110
> > everything seems
> > to be OK on R11
> > Yakout, there is nothing wrong with OSPF
> adjacencies betw R10 & R11.
> > I have 12.1(16) on R9 and R11 and 12.0(23) on R10
> >
> > And again If I remove OSPF from E0/0 on R10
> (172.16.1.2 faced to R9)
> > -
> > Everything is OK on R11 (only O E2) Why ??
> >
> > r11#sh ip ospf nei
> >
> > Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time
> Address
> > Interface
> > 172.16.5.2 1 FULL/BDR 00:00:31
> 172.16.5.2
> > Ethernet0
> > r11#sh ip ospf data
> >
> > OSPF Router with ID (172.16.222.1) (Process
> ID 10)
> >
> >
> > Router Link States (Area 0)
> >
> > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq#
> Checksum Link
> > count
> > 172.16.5.2 172.16.5.2 138
> 0x80000002 0xBD83 2
> > 172.16.222.1 172.16.222.1 137
> 0x80000004 0xE269 4
> >
> > Net Link States (Area 0)
> >
> > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq#
> Checksum
> > 172.16.5.1 172.16.222.1 137
> 0x80000001 0xCAAF
> >
> > Type-5 AS External Link States
> >
> > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq#
> Checksum Tag
> > 172.16.1.0 172.16.5.2 146
> 0x80000001 0x9589 0
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:28 GMT-3