From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@xxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 18 2002 - 21:09:25 GMT-3
That is odd.
If you disable the ospf neighbor on r11 using passive interface, are the
external eigrp routes effected? I'm trying to rule out r11.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 4:56 PM
To: 'Mingzhou Nie'; Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE); 'yakout yakout';
Colin Barber
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Are EIGRP external routes preferable than OSPF ext ??
OK guys,
.100, .111 and .222 - are loopbacks on R11 - It's irrelevant.
I just forgot to remove it from previous test :)
Yesterday when I got this problem I didn't have these loopbacks.
Ok, I removed any feedback from the picture and left only one-way redist
on
R10:
Now R9---(igrp)---R10(redist IGRP-->OSPF,EIGRP)---R11 (OSPF, EIGRP)
The result is the same !!! D EX routes on R11.
(I even reload routers :o)
router eigrp 10
network 172.16.0.0
!
router ospf 10
redistribute igrp 10 subnets
network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.16.5.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
!
router igrp 10
no redistribute eigrp 10
passive-interface Ethernet1/0
network 172.16.0.0
172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 8 subnets
C 172.16.222.0 is directly connected, Loopback2
D EX 172.16.4.0 [170/435200] via 172.16.5.2, 00:00:21, Ethernet0
C 172.16.5.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0
D 172.16.1.0 [90/307200] via 172.16.5.2, 00:00:21, Ethernet0
D EX 172.16.2.0 [170/435200] via 172.16.5.2, 00:00:21, Ethernet0
D EX 172.16.3.0 [170/435200] via 172.16.5.2, 00:00:21, Ethernet0
C 172.16.111.0 is directly connected, Loopback1
C 172.16.100.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
r11#sh ip ei
r11#sh ip ospf nei
Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address
Interface
172.16.5.2 1 FULL/DR 00:00:36 172.16.5.2
Ethernet0
r11#sh ip ospf data
OSPF Router with ID (172.16.222.1) (Process ID 10)
Router Link States (Area 0)
Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Link
count
172.16.5.2 172.16.5.2 53 0x80000002 0xC778 2
172.16.222.1 172.16.222.1 52 0x80000002 0x1538 4
Net Link States (Area 0)
Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum
172.16.5.2 172.16.5.2 53 0x80000001 0x133F
Type-5 AS External Link States
Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Tag
172.16.1.0 172.16.5.2 263 0x80000001 0x9589 0
172.16.2.0 172.16.5.2 145 0x80000001 0xD18D 0
172.16.3.0 172.16.5.2 145 0x80000001 0xC697 0
172.16.4.0 172.16.5.2 145 0x80000001 0xBBA1 0
172.16.5.0 172.16.5.2 263 0x80000001 0x69B1 0
r11#sh ip eig
r11#sh ip eigrp top
IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(10)/ID(172.16.222.1)
Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
r - reply Status, s - sia Status
P 172.16.222.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
via Connected, Loopback2
P 172.16.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
via 172.16.5.2 (435200/409600), Ethernet0
P 172.16.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 281600
via Connected, Ethernet0
P 172.16.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 307200
via 172.16.5.2 (307200/281600), Ethernet0
P 172.16.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
via 172.16.5.2 (435200/409600), Ethernet0
P 172.16.3.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
via 172.16.5.2 (435200/409600), Ethernet0
P 172.16.111.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
via Connected, Loopback1
P 172.16.100.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
via Connected, Loopback0
r11#
==========
Dmitry
-----Original Message-----
From: Mingzhou Nie [mailto:mnie@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 5:11 PM
To: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE); 'yakout yakout'; Colin Barber
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Are EIGRP external routes preferable than OSPF ext ??
just curious. Which router is 172.16.222.1. and where do
> 172.16.100.0 172.16.5.2 119 0x80000001 0xCB2D 0
> 172.16.111.0 172.16.5.2 119 0x80000001 0x529B 0
> 172.16.222.0 172.16.5.2 120 0x80000001 0x88F5 0
come from?
You must have another router hanging in OSPF.
--- "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)" <dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Tried to put the same config again.
> At the beginning I got the same as Yakout, but after clear ip ro * on
> R11
> I got D EX routes.
>
> Colin is right.
> If we change eigrp internal distance on R11 higher than 110
> everything seems
> to be OK on R11
> Yakout, there is nothing wrong with OSPF adjacencies betw R10 & R11.
> I have 12.1(16) on R9 and R11 and 12.0(23) on R10
>
> And again If I remove OSPF from E0/0 on R10 (172.16.1.2 faced to R9)
> -
> Everything is OK on R11 (only O E2) Why ??
>
> r11#sh ip ospf nei
>
> Neighbor ID Pri State Dead Time Address
> Interface
> 172.16.5.2 1 FULL/BDR 00:00:31 172.16.5.2
> Ethernet0
> r11#sh ip ospf data
>
> OSPF Router with ID (172.16.222.1) (Process ID 10)
>
>
> Router Link States (Area 0)
>
> Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Link
> count
> 172.16.5.2 172.16.5.2 138 0x80000002 0xBD83 2
> 172.16.222.1 172.16.222.1 137 0x80000004 0xE269 4
>
> Net Link States (Area 0)
>
> Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum
> 172.16.5.1 172.16.222.1 137 0x80000001 0xCAAF
>
> Type-5 AS External Link States
>
> Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Tag
> 172.16.1.0 172.16.5.2 146 0x80000001 0x9589 0
> 172.16.2.0 172.16.5.2 143 0x80000001 0xD18D 0
> 172.16.3.0 172.16.5.2 143 0x80000001 0xC697 0
> 172.16.4.0 172.16.5.2 143 0x80000001 0xBBA1 0
> 172.16.5.0 172.16.5.2 146 0x80000001 0x69B1 0
> 172.16.100.0 172.16.5.2 119 0x80000001 0xCB2D 0
> 172.16.111.0 172.16.5.2 119 0x80000001 0x529B 0
> 172.16.222.0 172.16.5.2 120 0x80000001 0x88F5 0
>
>
> Dmitry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yakout yakout [mailto:yesmat@iprimus.com.au]
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:04 AM
> To: Colin Barber; Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE);
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Are EIGRP external routes preferable than OSPF ext ??
>
>
> Gents,
>
> It is got to work as expected. you should be able to see O E2 route
> coming
> from R9.
>
> Maybe your OSPF neigbors are not forming.
>
> I just tested it and it works as expected.
>
> Yakout
> #9893
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
> Of
> Colin Barber
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 9:01 PM
> To: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE); ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Are EIGRP external routes preferable than OSPF ext ??
>
>
> After a bit more testing it seems that the distance for external
> routes is
> not being taken into account properly, it seems to be looking at the
> internal distance.
>
> If I set the distance of EIGRP to 140 on R11, when I bounce the
> Ethernet
> interface the EIGRP routes are installed for a short time until OSPF
> has
> converged and then the routes are replace by OSPF, which is correct.
> However
> if the distance is left a 90 the EIGRP routes remain even though they
> are
> external and show a distance of 170 in the routing table.
>
> The problem only occurs when the EIGRP routes a available first. Then
> when
> the OSPF routes are available the routing table is not updated
> correctly.
> When a clear ip route * is performed the routes are available from
> both
> EIGRP and OSPF at the same time and the router then makes the correct
> choice.
>
> I have tested this with R11 on 11.3 IOS and the same thing happens.
>
> Colin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE) [mailto:dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com]
> Sent: 17 August 2002 23:46
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Are EIGRP external routes preferable than OSPF ext ??
>
>
> Hi I have simple setup:
>
> R9:(e0) (IGRP) ------(e0/0)R10(e1/0) (IGRP, EIGRP, OSPF)----(e0)R11
> (EIGRP,
> OSPF)
> There is redistr between IGRP,OSPF and EIGRP on R10.
>
> So, routes from R9 are redist to EIGRP and to OSPF on R10 and
> received on
> R11 (via both ospf and eigrp)
>
> Somehow I see R9 loopbacks routes on R11 as learned via EIGRP
> (external),
> but OSPF...
> D EX has distance 170, OSPF 110, but there are no ospf routes in
> routing
> table on R11.
> However, they are in database as external. When I stop EIGRP on R11,
> I can
> see OSPF E2 routes there.
>
> If I stop ospf running on e0/0 (R10) - everything is OK - R11 see all
> external routes as O E2.
>
> Why ??
>
> R9:
> !
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 172.16.2.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Loopback1
> ip address 172.16.3.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Loopback2
> ip address 172.16.4.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> router igrp 10
> network 172.16.0.0
>
> R10:
> interface Ethernet0/0
> ip address 172.16.1.2 255.255.255.0
> no ip directed-broadcast
> !
> interface Ethernet1/0
> ip address 172.16.5.2 255.255.255.0
> no ip directed-broadcast
> !
> router eigrp 10
> redistribute ospf 10 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500
> network 172.16.0.0
> !
> router ospf 10
> redistribute igrp 10 subnets
> redistribute eigrp 10 subnets
> network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
> network 172.16.5.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
>
> !
> router igrp 10
> redistribute ospf 10 metric 10000 100 255 1 1500
> passive-interface Ethernet1/0
> network 172.16.0.0
>
> R11
> !
> interface Ethernet0
> ip address 172.16.5.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> router eigrp 10
> network 172.16.0.0
> auto-summary
> no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:28 GMT-3