Re: EIGRP with HSRP Question.

So we see a /8..... I haven't seen network to know why it ended up
this way. I understand that removing summary could load up rib... more
than i previously thought.... I still think you can get this done by
adjusting with longest prefix match and avoiding quite a bit of
delay/distance/metric/variance tweaks. If you are weary of taking away
a summary, just add a more specific summary (i.e. /24) to R1 interface
that neighbor-ships form on.

regards,

Marc

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
> If I read JB correctly, he is trying to have simetrical in/out paths
> via a pair of border routers/switches.
> Problem is... HSRP has no easy way to be linked to the L3 control plane.
> In other words, it is not easy to let the outside (WAN) router know which is
> your current active HSRP router. I've long wished there was an HSRP track of
> sorts. But now one can be made with EEM.
>
> -Carlos
>
> marc abel @ 08/02/2013 02:58 -0300 dixit:
>
>> The fact that the metrics are the same shows that the hops, bandwidth, and
>> delay are the same, so you aren't introducing anymore more latency by
>> selecting either route. In fact you may be better off letting the router
>> remain on the link that is NOT your HSRP primary because then you won't be
>> competing with your user traffic as much. Another option would be to turn
>> on equal cost load balancing so it can use both paths. The default should
>> be 4 equal paths. You can change this with "maximum-paths" under the eigrp
>> process.
>>
>> If you are sure you want to make it prefer the other path you can do this
>> by influencing the metric by changing the bandwith or delay on the link,
>> or
>> using an offset list to make one more or less desirable. Changing the
>> bandwidth or delay don't actually affect link performance, just the metric
>> they use to determine which path is more desirable.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:29 PM, 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Fri Feb 08 2013 - 04:42:33 ART