From: Jason Madsen (madsen.jason@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2008 - 00:47:13 ART
great breakdown for him Hobbs. to add to what you wrote, you can use
"variance" as a multiplier to add feasible routes to your routing table.
just multiply the variance value to your successor (route in routing table)
metric and this will give you the max metric that can be added to the
routing table. once you have multiple routes in your routing table, you can
use "show ip route x.x.x.x" to view the share count values for each path.
when wanting to manipulate the share counts (eigrp still) it is typically
recommended to adjust the delay metric, rather than bandwidth etc.
Jason
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Hobbs <deadheadblues@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, lab it and see :-)
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3/iproute/command/reference/ip2_s2g.html#wp1042641
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Mark Stephanus Chandra <
> mark.chandra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even for the unselected Route ? (Not selected as successor and not
> > selected as feasibles successor).
> >
> >
> >
> > I guess the route for unselected route, not shown with show ip eigrp
> > topology.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > *Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *IT Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hobbs [mailto:deadheadblues@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:52 AM
> >
> > *To:* Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *Cc:* ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > *Subject:* Re: EIGRP Concept
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, "show ip eigrp topology all-links" will show you it.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Mark Stephanus Chandra <
> > mark.chandra@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But Anyway, can I clarify for unselected route of feasible successor
> > selection process.
> >
> >
> >
> > But typing show ip eigrp topology, we only can clarify the successor and
> > feasible successor right ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > /-----250-----R1-----100-----\
> > / \
> > Router A------300-----R2-----200--------|--------Network B
> > \ /
> > \-----100-----R3-----400-----/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Any command to verify unselected route ? (R3 to Router A) Just to make
> > sure R3 advertised that route to Router A.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > *Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *IT Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hobbs [mailto:deadheadblues@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:31 AM
> >
> >
> > *To:* Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *Cc:* ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > *Subject:* Re: EIGRP Concept
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry. I should have said 200 < 350. 200 is from R2 to Network B. Wish
> this
> > was a blog, I could edit it...
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Mark Stephanus Chandra <
> > mark.chandra@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hobbs,
> >
> >
> >
> > Many Thanks Hobbs, Still have one question :
> >
> >
> >
> > /-----250-----R1-----100-----\
> > / \
> > Router A------300-----R2-----200--------|--------Network B
> > \ /
> > \-----100-----R3-----400-----/
> >
> > You said :
> >
> >
> >
> > In order to be a feasible successor R2 or R3 must advertise a distance
> less
> > than 350. Router 2 is the only one left that does this (*300*<350). So
> > even though R2 and R3 are equal cost, only R2 is feasible successor.
> >
> >
> >
> > From your statement "(*300*<350)", You get metric 300 from link between
> R2
> > and Router A, anyway, R3 ro Router A have metric 100, Why Router A
> doesn'r
> > pick R3 to be the feasible successor the ? It has better metric.
> >
> >
> >
> > Or Maybe you mean the metric From Network B to R2 which is 200 and R3 is
> > 400. Router A will choose R2 to be feasible successor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong Hobbs :)
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot anyway, reallt appreciate your time doing this :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > *Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *IT Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hobbs [mailto:deadheadblues@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:01 AM
> >
> >
> > *To:* Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *Cc:* ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > *Subject:* Re: EIGRP Concept
> >
> >
> >
> > Well I'll try, If I screw up somewhere please let me know guys:-)
> >
> > Suppose Router A has 3 routes to destination Network B. These routes go
> > through Router1, Router2, and Router3.
> >
> > /-----250-----R1-----100-----\
> > / \
> > Router A------300-----R2-----200--------|--------Network B
> > \ /
> > \-----100-----R3-----400-----/
> >
> > These are the reported ("advertised") distances from each neighbor
> >
> > Router1 reports a metric of 100 to Network B
> > Router2 reports a metric of 200 to Network B
> > Router3 reports a metric of 400 to Network B
> >
> > Router A must also add its distance to each of the routers. So the total
> > distance are:
> >
> > Router1: 100+250 = 350
> > Router2: 200+300 = 500
> > Router3: 400+100 = 500
> >
> > Router A will pick the lowest metric as it's successor, this will be the
> > path through Router1. It will set the feasible distance to 350. Then for
> a
> > feasible successor, Router A will compare the reported ("advertised")
> > distance of the remaining routers to the feasible distance 350.
> >
> > In order to be a feasible successor R2 or R3 must advertise a distance
> less
> > than 350. Router 2 is the only one left that does this (300<350). So even
> > though R2 and R3 are equal cost, only R2 is feasible successor.
> >
> > The reason EIGRP does this is because it has no way of knowing if the
> path
> > through R3 somehow goes back through itself on to network A. R3's
> advertised
> > distance for 400 could very well include Router A's already calculated
> > feasible distance of 350. EIGRP has no way of knowing this...it would be
> > nice if it could!
> >
> > hope that explains it :-)
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Mark Stephanus Chandra <
> > mark.chandra@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hobbs,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the explanation, buta sorry, I still don't get it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry if I ask too much, but maybe it is better with a example of simple
> > drawing of topology. It can help much.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > *Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *IT Consultant
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hobbs [mailto:deadheadblues@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:28 AM
> > *To:* Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > *Cc:* ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > *Subject:* Re: EIGRP Concept
> >
> >
> >
> > Feasible successor is not better than the successor :-)
> >
> > It is better than the successor's reported distance (the distance as
> > reported from the neighbor of the successor route).
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Mark Stephanus Chandra <
> > mark.chandra@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > dEAR Expert,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm kinda confuse with eigrp concept recently. Just come up in my mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is about a successor and feasible successor.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, In my Understanding of EIGRP concept right now :
> >
> >
> >
> > EIGRP will choose the best metric, and become Feasible Distance , right ?
> >
> >
> >
> > So If a ROUTE wants to be a feasible successor, It must have better
> metric
> > than feasible distance, right ?
> >
> >
> >
> > So, it comes a question, so feasible successor is always better than a
> > successor but a successor the one who become the primary route, Why ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Because feasible successor have better metric than successor right ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Please get me out of my confusion of EIGRP concept right here hehhee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance for you all
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Stephanus Chandra
> > IT Consultant
> > EX Computindo
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2008 - 08:15:29 ART