From: Tony H. (aamercado31@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 18 2002 - 22:48:08 GMT-3
Dmitry:
Can you post:
show ip eigrp topology 172.16.2.0 255.255.255.0
and
sh ip route 172.16.2.0
thx
--- "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)"
<dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> I removed IGRP AS 10 and put IGRP AS 11 (different
> process number) on R10
> and R11
> and made explicit one-way redistr from igrp 11 to
> eigrp 10 on r10.
>
> The result is the same 8-) D EX on R11.
>
>
> Michael,
>
> making ospf passive E0 on R11 doesn't change RT on
> R11.
> Only ospf passive on e0/0 on R10 (faced to R9) puts
> proper routes O E2 on
> R11.
>
>
> Dmitry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony H. [mailto:aamercado31@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:34 PM
> To: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE); 'Mingzhou Nie';
> 'yakout yakout';
> Colin Barber
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Are EIGRP external routes preferable
> than OSPF ext ??
>
>
> 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?
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:28 GMT-3