From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2008 - 03:48:58 ARST
No, it shouldn't be excluded from the *topology* table, but it should not be
eligible for any kind of load-balancing and it is not a feasible successor
for rapid failover. Certainly you wouldn't see it in the *routing* table
unless that Fa0/1 path went away and the query process completed...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Herbert Maosa
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:15 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: EIGRP Feasibility Condition
It could be very early in the morning and I probably am missing something
fundamental here. Look at the output below. Shouldn't the highlighted path
be excluded from the EIGRP topology table based on failing the feasibility
condition according to the current feasible distance ?
sh ip eigrp topo 222.22.2.0
IP-EIGRP (AS 1024): Topology entry for 222.22.2.0/24
State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 30720
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
174.1.45.5 (FastEthernet0/1), from 174.1.45.5, Send flag is 0x0
Composite metric is (30720/28160), Route is External
Vector metric:
Minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit
Total delay is 200 microseconds
Reliability is 255/255
Load is 1/255
Minimum MTU is 1500
Hop count is 1
External data:
Originating router is 150.1.5.5
AS number of route is 0
External protocol is RIP, external metric is 7
Administrator tag is 0 (0x00000000)
* 174.1.145.1 (Serial0/0/0), from 174.1.145.1, Send flag is 0x0
Composite metric is (2684416/2172416), Route is External*
Vector metric:
Minimum bandwidth is 1544 Kbit
Total delay is 40100 microseconds
Reliability is 255/255
Load is 1/255
Minimum MTU is 1500
Hop count is 2
External data:
Originating router is 150.1.5.5
AS number of route is 0
External protocol is RIP, external metric is 7
Administrator tag is 0 (0x00000000)
Herbert.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:37:58 ARST