RE: EIGRP with HSRP Question.

A simple way to fix this is just to use a static route, but point the next-hop at the HSRP VIP.

Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security)
bmcgahan_at_INE.com
 
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.INE.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of JB Poplawski
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 8:27 AM
To: marc edwards
Cc: Carlos G Mendioroz; marc abel; Johnny Morris; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: EIGRP with HSRP Question.

This is the actual config. My HSRP primary is 10.15.20.2. I don't want any added latency between .3 and .2 as .2 is HSRP root and STP root.
I think switching the IPs around would be a crude way to accomplish this.

Thoughts?
JB

Temp01#show ip route 10.15.0.0
Routing entry for 10.15.0.0/16
  Known via "eigrp 100", distance 170, metric 51456, type external
  Redistributing via eigrp 100
  Last update from 10.15.20.2 on GigabitEthernet0/1, 06:14:27 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.15.20.3, from 10.15.20.3, 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
    10.15.20.2, from 10.15.20.2, 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 Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:42 AM, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 - 10:46:21 ART