show ip eigrp events: route ignored, dup router on i/f that's shutdown

Unanswered Question
Jan 28th, 2010

When I do a "show ip eigrp events" I see "Ignored route, neighbor info: 10.46.246.14 FastEthernet0/2". Two things: (1) FastEthernet0/2 is administratively shutdown (2) there isn't a dup router. I have had a Cisco TAC case opened on this for about 6 weeks with several people looking at the configs and agreeing there's no dup router-id. Yet, I haven't gotten an explanation for what the heck this means. Anyone else ever see something similar?

437  12:23:50.006 RDB delete: 10.46.135.114/32 0.0.0.0
438  12:23:50.006 queued for recalculation:
439  12:23:50.006 min metric/result code: 512000 2
440  12:23:50.006 added/metric: 0 0
441  12:23:50.006 Revise summary: 10.46.128.0/18
442  12:23:50.006 Find FS: 10.46.135.114/32 4294967295
443  12:23:50.006 Free reply status: 10.46.135.114/32
444  12:23:50.006 Clr handle num/bits: 1 0x0
445  12:23:50.006 Clr handle dest/cnt: 10.46.135.114/32 0
446  12:23:50.006 Rcv reply met/succ met: 4294967295 4294967295
447  12:23:50.006 Rcv reply dest/nh: 10.46.135.114/32 10.46.246.14
448  12:23:50.006 Ignored route, neighbor info: 10.46.246.14 FastEthernet0/2
449  12:23:50.006 Ignored route, dup router: 10.46.242.62

Thanks,

Steve

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
stevejennings Thu, 01/28/2010 - 09:12

Also . . . the route being ignored is coming from a BGP redistribution into EIGRP.

And . . . the 10.46.246.14 address is the G0/2.1 subinterface of the sending router.

Thanks again,

Steve

Giuseppe Larosa Thu, 01/28/2010 - 09:42

Hello Steve,

is the redistribution of BGP into EIGRP taking place on the same device or on the neighbor device or both are redistributing the same BGP prefix?

about the next-hop, if I understand correctly the IP 10.46.246.14 is that of a regular EIGRP neighbor?

Is correct to say that this output is taken by a debug ip eigrp events rather then a show command?

There are some non-sense messages in EIGRP debug messages like when it complains to receive its own EIGRP hellos on loopback interfaces!

I would focus on EIGRP topology table for the IP prefix in question does it show the correct expected ouput?

sh ip eigrp topology

I wonder if you are seeing the signs of a competition between two EIGRP nodes in injecting an external route for the involved prefix or the result of a route filter applied outbound on local node on interface receiving the unwanted update.

or if even a neighbor is sending on an interface an update that contains an external route generated by local node passed to a third node and then sent to this local node by the above EIGRP neighbor (because received on another interface)

if so local node receives its own update back on another interface and complains of having recevied an update that looks coming from a duplicated node.

may you check if the prefix is blocked by a distribution list out the interface receiving the wrong update?

if so the neighbor tries to send an update to the local node because it is no receiving the same prefix on the link.

EIGRP router-id is places in a field of external EIGRP routes and allows for a consistency checks before accepting an external route.

But in general EIGRP builds neighborships on per link basis and cannot recognize the same node as OSPF or ISIS could do.

Edit:

the Fas0/2 is in shutdown ? well this makes the whole thing too strange.

Hope to help

Giuseppe

stevejennings Thu, 01/28/2010 - 09:58

<<<<>>>>

There are 3 7204's involved, all receiving the same BGP distribution into the same EIGRP processes.

<<<<>>>>

Yes, that's right.

<<<<>>>>

It's an "undocumented" Cisco command: show ip eigrp events

<<<<< I wonder if you are seeing the signs of a competition between two EIGRP nodes in injecting an external route for the involved prefix or the result of a route filter applied outbound on local node on interface receiving the unwanted update.>>>>>

Very interesting . . . my small brain will need take time to reflect on that.

<<<<< or if even a neighbor is sending on an interface an update that contains an external route generated by local node passed to a third node and then sent to this local node by the above EIGRP neighbor (because received on another interface) if so local node receives its own update back on another interface and complains of having recevied an update that looks coming from a duplicated node.>>>>>

Also very interesting . . . also need to increase voltage/amps to brain to think through.

As I said, there are 3 x 7204's connected as in a triangle, all receiving the same BGP route updates and all sending those updates to one another.

Thanks very much Giuseppe. I'll look closely at the things you suggest.

Steve

Actions

This Discussion

Related Content