Re: EIGRP with HSRP Question.

I noticed Your Summary is a /8 for 192.168.0.0?
On Feb 8, 2013 12:39 AM, "Johnny Morris" <johnnymorris01_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> This is What Your looking for, HTH
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a00800c2d96.shtml
> On Feb 8, 2013 12:29 AM, "JB Poplawski" <jb.poplawski_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Routing entry for 192.168.0.0/8
>> Known via "eigrp 100", distance 170, metric 51456, type external
>> Redistributing via eigrp 100
>> Last update from 192.168.1.2 on GigabitEthernet0/1, 06:14:27 ago
>> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>> * 192.168.1.3, from 192.168.1.3, 06:14:27 ago, via GigabitEthernet0/1
>> Route metric is 51456, traffic share count is 1
>> Total delay is 1010 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit
>> Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1492 bytes
>> Loading 1/255, Hops 1
>> 192.168.1.2, from 192.168.1.2, 06:14:27 ago, via GigabitEthernet0/1
>> Route metric is 51456, traffic share count is 1
>> Total delay is 1010 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit
>> Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1492 bytes
>> Loading 1/255, Hops 1
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Longest prefix match always wins. Remove summary to reveal more
>>> specific routes. Could be that simple or as complicated as you want to
>>> make it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:00 PM, JB Poplawski <jb.poplawski_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Both core routers/switches advertise the same subnet. WAN Router sees
>>> both
>>> > routes, but prefers the higher IP (or so it seems).
>>> >
>>> > If I had 5 routers, highest IP wins, right? If that's the case, I
>>> need to
>>> > get my primary HSRP/STP Switch to have the higher IP in the group.
>>> >
>>> > Trying to avoid any latency or additional hop in this solution.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:41 PM, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Take advertisement off R1 and let it advertise all specific subnets in
>>> >> 192.168. Hard to say what without knowing what is attempting to be
>>> >> accomplished. When you say Router 2 leads the pack, I assume that this
>>> >> is from the view of your WAN router?Again without knowing exactly what
>>> >> is trying to be accomplished, if this is for lab or real design makes
>>> >> it tough to validate any decisions. But I can guarantee that longest
>>> >> prefix match will be the #1 routing selection and easiest to change by
>>> >> simply removing R1's summary.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Marc
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Johnny Morris <
>>> johnnymorris01_at_gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > What is your IGP ? You wouldn't necessarily mess with HSRP to
>>> influence
>>> >> > an
>>> >> > outbound route to a neighbor, You can use an offset-list for example
>>> >> > with
>>> >> > EIGRP on the two routers facing the 3rd router and reference an ACL
>>> with
>>> >> > the redistributed static route going to your third router. I would
>>> look
>>> >> > at
>>> >> > the metric that is being received from both routers and offset it
>>> >> > depending
>>> >> > on your IGP or routing protocol. For example of the route was
>>> received
>>> >> > with
>>> >> > the same metric and you had two routes to get to the network you
>>> could
>>> >> > do
>>> >> > the following with eigrp:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > An example would be
>>> >> >
>>> >> > R1
>>> >> >
>>> >> > router eigrp 1
>>> >> >
>>> >> > red static
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Offset- list 1 out 132000 INTERFACE
>>> >> >
>>> >> > access-list 1 p 192.168.0.0
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 x.x.x.x
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > R2
>>> >> >
>>> >> > router eigrp 1
>>> >> >
>>> >> > red static
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Offset- list 1 out 132500 INTERFACE
>>> >> >
>>> >> > access-list 1 p 192.168.0.0
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 x.x.x.x
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Again depends on your routing protocol you are running between the
>>> >> > routers,
>>> >> > because you mentioned Variance I assume you are running EIGRP.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Feb 7, 2013 6:23 PM, "JB Poplawski" <jb.poplawski_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Good afternoon,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Have a scenario, it might be nit-picky, but figured I should ask.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I have two routers running HSRP
>>> >> >> HSRP VIP - 192.168.1.1
>>> >> >> Router 1 Active - 192.168.1.2
>>> >> >> Router 2 Standby - 192.168.1.3
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Both routers are redistributing static for a network summary.
>>> >> >> 192.168.0.0/16
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I have an additional WAN router that comes in and is on that same
>>> Layer
>>> >> >> 3
>>> >> >> subnet.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> WAN - 192.168.1.10
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> If I do a show ip route 192.168.0.0, I see both routers
>>> advertising the
>>> >> >> summary, Router 2 is leading the pack for who owns that route. My
>>> >> >> Router 1
>>> >> >> is both the VIP holder AND STP root, though.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What am I doing wrong? I assume I can add distance statement and
>>> drop
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> standby down a peg or two. Are there any cleaner ways? Drop
>>> variance
>>> >> >> down?Any help is greatly appreciated.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Regards,
>>> >> >> JB
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 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
Received on Fri Feb 08 2013 - 00:42:52 ART