From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 18 2002 - 22:50:52 GMT-3
>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
But R9 doesn't have OSPF. Why would that help?
Which leaves that there's an interaction on e0/0 between IGRP, OSPF, and
EIGRP that directly or indirectly causing R11 to get external EIGRP
routes that shouldn't be there.
Also am I correct that even if R11 is getting two sets of routes, it
should prefer the ospf routes that have a lower admin distance?
So the problem is two fold.
R10 is sending routes it should never send.
R11 is preferring routes it should never prefer.
I'll try do duplicate it tonight, I have my lab up.
P.S. If you would, turn off spilt horizon on e0 R11. External OSPF
routes are DV like, maybe that part of it is just a bug.
----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?
>
> 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