Weird Routing problem

Answered Question
Jul 20th, 2009

Hi

I can't get my head round this problem.

I have an office (Site 2) connected via WAN conneciton from a switch in site 1. Both sites are running eigrp.

In site 2 when I do a sh ip ro 10.45.61.0 I get route not found. However if I do the same in site 1 on the switch I get:

sh ip ro 10.45.61.0

Routing entry for 10.45.61.0/24

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* 10.44.99.254

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

My eigrp config on both sites looks like this:

Site1:

router eigrp 100

passive-interface default

no passive-interface Vlan756

no passive-interface Vlan776

no passive-interface Vlan999

network 10.10.51.92 0.0.0.3

network 10.10.51.100 0.0.0.3

Site2:

router eigrp 100

passive-interface default

no passive-interface Vlan2

no passive-interface Vlan776

no passive-interface Vlan2080

no passive-interface Vlan2083

network 10.10.51.88 0.0.0.3

network 10.10.51.92 0.0.0.3

network 10.10.51.96 0.0.0.3

network 10.10.51.100 0.0.0.3

network 10.66.1.0 0.0.0.255

network 10.66.2.0 0.0.0.255

network 10.66.50.0 0.0.0.255

distribute-list bcn-eigrp-out out Vlan776

distribute-list bcn-eigrp-out out Vlan2080

distribute-list bcn-eigrp-out out Vlan2083

distribute-list bcn-eigrp-out out GigabitEthernet1/0/48

auto-summary

Any thoughts on why it's not propgating?

Thanks

Dan

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by andrewswanson about 7 years 4 months ago

you should add command "redistribute static" under router eigrp 100 at site 1 (or use a network statement). see:

http://supportwiki.cisco.com/ViewWiki/index.php/How_does_EIGRP_redistribute_a_static_route_to_an_interface%3F

hth

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
dan_track Tue, 07/21/2009 - 00:36

Hi

Following on from this when I run the following:

sh ip eigrp topology | i 10.45.61

P 10.45.61.0/24, 0 successors, FD is Inaccessible

I can't see why the route is inaccessible? Would anyone have an idea why that might be?

Thanks

Dan

dan_track Tue, 07/21/2009 - 01:00

Hi,

To add to the above can you please explain why the route isn't being propgated by eigrp. If the static route isn't being propagated why can't the eigrp route be propagated?

Thanks

Dan

dan_track Tue, 07/21/2009 - 01:40

Hi

Thanks for the reply. No no other routing protocols at site2. To be honest site2 is relatively simple as it's just a small office. I've included the eigrp config in my first post.

Site 1 has a few static routes. Any thoughts?

Thanks

Dan

andrewswanson Tue, 07/21/2009 - 01:58

Hi Dan

did you add the "redistribute static" command under the eigrp process on site 1 - if so, did you specify the metric?

cheers

andy

dan_track Tue, 07/21/2009 - 02:10

Hi

Sorry, I may have confused people. I understand that I need to add that redestribute command in.

I've been reading in the last hour on the questions I have posed and have found the following:

"when the FD is inaccessible in the EIGRP topology table, the router is not using that EIGRP route in its routing table. Usually, the route is overridden by another routing protocol that has lower administrative distance."

This explains the FD question I had. My static route is being placed in the routing table of the switch instead of the eigrp route and so eigrp topology is showing my route as inaccessible.

My guess is if I remove the static route in the switch on site 1 the route will then propagated to site 2.

I'm going to do that in the next 10 minutes and I'll report back on what I find.

Thanks for your help.

Dan

dan_track Tue, 07/21/2009 - 02:41

Great,

That worked, eigrp is now propagating the route.

Thanks everyone.

Actions

This Discussion