From: Martin, Chris (chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jun 05 2002 - 20:35:51 GMT-3
in your route table you have a network statement of 10.0.0.0 for igrp, igrp
has a lower administrative distance then eigrp redistribution, which would
be external with a AD of 170, i beleive that may be the problem, or try
clearing the route table, shutting the interface and bringing it back up
again...
HTH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
To: "Martin, Chris" <chris@pacinter.net>; "CCIE GROUPSTUDY"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: EIGRP Topology Issue
> It does have the same mask as IGRP.
>
> r1----Frame----R2
> |
> Frame
> |
> R5
>
>
> 172.150.2.0/24 between R1 and R2
> 172.150.1.0/24 between R1 and R5
>
> Loopback 0=10.2.2.2/24 on R2.
>
> R1 to R2 is EIGRP
> R2 to R5 is IGRP
>
> Loopback 0 on R2 is redistributed via connected into EIGRP.
>
> 10.2.2.0/24 shows up in EIGRP topology on R1 but not routing table.
>
> 10.2.2.0/24 shows up in R5 routing table via IGRP from R1.
> EIGRP and IGRP have same AS number so redistribution is happening on R1.
>
>
> MP
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin, Chris" <chris@pacinter.net>
> To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>; "CCIE GROUPSTUDY"
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: EIGRP Topology Issue
>
>
> > it looks to me your running IGRP, from what the route table shows, and i
> > would guess your loopback has a mask that doesnt match your outbound
> > interface on the router running igrp.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > To: "CCIE GROUPSTUDY" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 2:21 PM
> > Subject: EIGRP Topology Issue
> >
> >
> > > I have a virtual-template connecting R1 and R2 over frame. On R2 I am
> > getting
> > > all the routes via EIGRP and I am redistributing connected with a
> > route-map to
> > > limit it to Loopback 0 network. The loopback 0 network on R2 appears
in
> > the
> > > EIGRP topology of R1 but not in the routing table.
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > > MP
> > >
> > > r1#sh ip eigrp topology
> > > IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(100)/ID(192.168.100.1)
> > >
> > > Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
> > > r - reply Status, s - sia Status
> > >
> > > P 10.2.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 22688000
> > > via 172.150.2.2 (22688000/128256), Virtual-Access1
> > > P 10.0.0.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40640000
> > > via Redistributed (40640000/0)
> > > P 10.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
> > > via Redistributed (128256/0)
> > > P 10.20.20.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40512000
> > > via Redistributed (40512000/0)
> > > P 192.168.100.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
> > > via Redistributed (128256/0)
> > > P 172.150.8.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40537600
> > > via Redistributed (40537600/0)
> > > P 172.150.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 22560000
> > > via Connected, Virtual-Access1
> > > P 172.150.2.2/32, 1 successors, FD is 22560000
> > > via Rconnected (22560000/0)
> > > P 172.150.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 40512000
> > > via Redistributed (40512000/0)
> > >
> > > R1 routing table:
> > >
> > > r1#si
> > >
> > > Gateway of last resort is not set
> > >
> > > 172.150.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 4 subnets, 2 masks
> > > I 172.150.8.0/24 [100/158350] via 172.150.1.5, 00:01:24, Serial0
> > > C 172.150.1.0/24 is directly connected, Serial0
> > > 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 4 subnets
> > > I 10.0.0.0 [100/158750] via 172.150.1.5, 00:01:24, Serial0
> > > C 10.20.20.0 is directly connected, Serial0
> > > C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
> > > C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0
> > > C 192.168.100.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:25 GMT-3