From: Scott Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2008 - 04:25:43 ARST
Hi Herbert,
I think you're correct. If you just do 'sh ip eig top' you will not see
non-feasible successors unless you use the 'all-links' keyword. However,
you displayed the topology for a specific prefix, which give you everything
the router's got for it. Sorry, I didn't realize exactly where the
confusion was.
Regards,
Scott
From: Herbert Maosa [mailto:asawilunda@googlemail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:21 PM
To: Scott Vermillion
Cc: Eric Leung; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: EIGRP Feasibility Condition
Perhaps let me re-phrase the question. Should that route be visible through
show ip eigrp topology ? I definitely agree it will be in the topology
table as it is being learnt, but I believed until it passes the feasibility
condition it should not be listed by way of this command as this command
supposedly lists only feasible successors and successors.
Herbert.
On Jan 7, 2008 6:17 AM, Scott Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> wrote:
Hey Eric,
Looking at the addressing scheme and the delay values (as well as a few
fields in the topology table entries), it looks like R5 connects to R4
directly via Fast-E and also via FR hub-and-spoke cloud, with R1 being the
hub. R5 is redistributing this external network learned via RIP from a BB.
R1 is advertising its route via the FR could on down to R4, which happens to
have a much better metric via the Fast-E connectivity. Both paths are
supposed to be in the topology table - just not the routing table. In fact,
if we looked at the R1 topology table, it would show two paths as well, and
the path via R4 and on up to R5 via Fast-E would also not meet the
feasibility condition but would nevertheless still be in the topology table
of R1.
Regards,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Leung
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 11:01 PM
To: Herbert Maosa
Cc: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: EIGRP Feasibility Condition
Hi Herbert,
would you mind post the configuration?
eric.
2008/1/7, Herbert Maosa < <mailto:asawilunda@googlemail.com>
asawilunda@googlemail.com>:
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:37:58 ARST