Re: EIGRP ROUTING INACCESSIBLE

From: Fahad Khan (fahad.khan@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2008 - 06:06:18 ARST

Mark,

You said R1 is running EIGRP only, how come it has a route like "O" . any
typing mistake? kindly clarify.

regards,

On 10/31/08, Mark Stephanus Chandra <mark.chandra@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
>
>
> I have a question here :
>
>
>
> When I have a topology R1-----R2------R3
>
> |
>
> |
>
> R4
>
>
>
> Somehow R1, and R3 is running eigrp protocol
>
>
>
> R2 is runnign eigrp and ospf routing protocol
>
> R4 is running OSPF
>
>
>
> Route on R1 :
>
>
>
> O 174.1.26.0/24 [110/2] via 174.1.23.2, 00:05:49, Multilink1 and
> redistribute to eigrp
>
>
>
> So I have scenario somehow R2 have external EIGRP from R1 but it was beaten
> by OSPF AD, so OSPF won
>
>
>
> the route become inaccessible :
>
> O IA 174.1.26.0/24 [110/6] via 174.1.31.9, 00:58:19, FastEthernet0/0.13
>
>
>
> P 174.1.26.0/24, 0 successors, FD is Inaccessible, serno 0
>
> via 174.1.13.3 (10537472/10025472), Serial0/1
>
>
>
> so, I notice the route is not being advertise to R3, eveN R3 is using only
> EIGRP protocol.
>
>
>
> So I guess when the transit router not install the route, it not gonna
> advertise to any their neghbor. Is that a correc behaviour ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Mark Stephanus Chandra
> IT Consultant
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

-- 
Fahad Khan

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 08:18:28 ARST