From: Scott M Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2008 - 17:21:20 ARST
>Why 172.31.127.2/32 and 172.31.127.6/32 appeared in routing table as
>directly connected? is it normal? 172.31.127.2 is the IP Wan address from
>Router B. and 172.31.127.6/32 is the IP Wan Address from Router C.
Yes, it's normal behavior with PPP. Specifically, I believe it's IPCP
installing these host routes. If you look at PPP from a historical (dialup)
perspective, the need for this (in many cases) makes sense. I believe this
behavior can be disabled by the following interface subcommand:
'no peer neighbor-route'
The command reference for this particular entry doesn't really address the
use of the 'no' form of this command for this specific situation but here's
the link, FWIW:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/dial/command/reference/dia_p1.html#wp101
1411
As for this part:
>But in router C (CRIAJE-2) appear one D EX route (D EX
172.31.127.2/32[170/15119872] via 172.31.127.5, 00:04:05, Multilink1) ...
why if i'm >not redistributed that route.. ?????
Not entirely sure - it's been a long time since I messed with any of this
but my recollection was that you had to redistribute static in order to
propagate these host routes at the hub. At first glance, it looks as if
your route-map should have taken care of these. But it could be that EIGRP
is automatically redistributing the IPCP host routes and that your route-map
is being applied afterwards. Either way, start with trying the above and
see if that eliminates the appearance of these host routes. Then you can
decide if you want to try to figure out why these are getting redistributed
in spite of your route-map...
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 08:18:30 ARST