Re: Redistribution Problem

EIGRP is AS 100 versus EIGRP 200

Check your metrics. Just because you have two routes does not always
imply load balancing - what's the feasible distance?

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:51 PM, HEMANTH RAJ <hemanthrj_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> s0/1 s0/0
> R2-------------------R3\s 0/2
> | | \
> |s0/0 s0/3 | \
> | | \ R1-loo 0
> 1.1.1.1/24
> | | \ s 0/0 R1-loo 1
> 11.11.11.11/24
> | | \
> | | / R5 R2-loo o 2.2.2.2
> /24
> | | / R2-loo 1
> 22.22.22.22/24
> | | / s 0/1
> | | /
> | s0/0 | /
> | s0/3 | /s0/2
> R1-------------------R4
> s0/1 s0/0
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm running ospf area 0 on R1,R2,R3 s 0/0,R4 s0/0
>
> R3 s0/3 ospf area 20
> R4 s0/3 ospf area 20
>
> R3 s0/2 eigrp AS 100
> R5 s0/0 eigrp AS 100
>
> R4 s0/2 eigrp AS 200
> R5 s0/1 eigrp AS 200
>
>
> I have done mutual redistribution on R3 between OSPF and EIGRP 100
>
> I have done mutual redistribution on R4 between OSPF and EIGRP 200
>
> Every route can ping every other route
>
> But when i check on R5 routing table I'm learning R1's loopback0 via R3
>
> But as per the logic it should load balance between R3 and R4 but it is
> choosing only R3
> and when i check on R5 topology table it shows the route via R4 is
> inaccessible
>
> I have reidstributed from opsf to eigrp with same metric on both R3 and R4
>
> R3
> router eigrp 100
> redis ospf 1 met 1 1 1 1 1
>
> R4
> router eigrp 200
> redis ospf 1 met 1 1 1 1 1
>
> But still R5 is choosing path via R3 and not loadbalancing between R3 and R4
>
> Can anyone help me out of this issue???
>
>
>
> --
> Problems arise Bcoz we talk,prblms r not solve bcoz we dont talk So gud r
> bad talk to ur affectionate one's freely
>
> Urs Friendly,
> HP HEMANTH RAJ
>
>
> 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
Received on Fri Aug 27 2010 - 01:26:57 ART