I have a situation where I want to filter EIGRP routes being sent to a down stream switch (Layer 3). In this senario we have a 6513 sending routes to a down stream 3560E configured as a EIGRP stub-connected. My question is what is the preferred method to filter the EIGRP routes and only send a EIGRP default route to the downstream 3560E? Is it best to use a distribute list or the ip summary-address command? I know they pretty much do about the same thing. I have heard that a distribute-list is less risky since it does not place a default route to null0 in EIGRP topology route table.
First: I thought from previous posts that the router in question was learning a default route. From the recent post I see that it is the router that is doing the redistribution. Even with this change in the environment I believe that our previous answers were valid and that the summary address with adjusted AD is a good solution.
Second: I agree with Sundar that seeing the content of the routing table would be helpful.
I do note in your post that the remote stub router is correctly learning the default route from your router:
P 0.0.0.0/0, 2 successors, FD is 28416
via 10.201.2.3 (28416/2816), FastEthernet1/0/8
so I believe that this demonstrates that our suggestion is a workable solution.
Third: the notes from the config guide do correctly identify the risk of using a summary address to create a default route. By default the summary address creates a route to null0 with a very favorable AD (defaults to 5 on the local router). As long as you take our advice and make the AD of the summary address greater than the AD of the other default route then things will work as you want them to.
If it makes you more comfortable to follow the suggestion from the config guide and to use a distribute list to filter out all advertisements other than the default route then go ahead and do this. I am convinced that both approaches (if carefully implemented) will work. I made a suggestion that I though was perhaps more operationally simple (and perhaps slightly more efficient - though I have no hard data to support that). Perhaps the author of the config guide is considering something that we have not considered. The stated problem with the summary address is the potential to displace a "real" default route - and we have demonstrated a way to prevent that problem. Perhaps there is some other aspect that they considered but did not specify. I believe that both will work and that you can be comfortable with either alternative.
I wonder if any of the senior Cisco engineers who participate in this forum might have thoughts to share?
You posted the output of show ip eigrp topology. Can you post the output of 'show ip route 0.0.0.0'?