Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

eigrp convergence in triangle topology

what's the convergence events for the following topology and event?

192.168.0.1/24

|

1

/\

2-3

If R1 lose connection to 192.168.0.1/24, what would be the convergence sequences given that all 4 links are all equal bandwidth and delay?

My thought are as follows, please comment whether that makes sense.

R1 will try to find a feasible successor for 192.168.0.1/24, could not find one, mark 192 as unreachable and query neighbors R2 and R3.

R2 got query from R1, try to find a feasible successor, since R3 RD is not less than R2 FD, feasible condition not met, so R2 mark it as unreachable, and query R3.( it will not query R1 since query comes from R1).

R3 will got query from R1, and mark 192 network as unreachable and query R2.

R2 got query from R3, reply with unreachable, R3 also reply R2 with unreachable.

R2, R3 got unreachable reply with each other, remove 192 from topology table, become passive and reply to R1's query with unreachable.

R1 got replies from R2 and R3, remove 192 network from topology take and went to passive.

Am I right?

Thanks.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Gold

Re: eigrp convergence in triangle topology

Close enough.... Let me work through it, as well, since that might help.

1. R1 will notice it has lost it's connection to 192.168.1.0/24. It will examine it's topology table, and find it has no feasible successor, so it will mark the route active, and make the current cost infinite.

2. Because the topology table entry for 192.168.1.0/24 is now active, R1 will send queries to both R2 and R3. Since networks are never "perfect" in their timing, one of them will receive it before the other. Lets assume R2 receives it first.

3. When R2 receives this query, it examines its local topology table, and sees the query is from its successor, and it contains an infinite metric (R2's successor can no longer reach the destination). R2 will examine its topology table, and find it has no other path to 192.168.1.0/24, so it marks the route active.

4. When R3 receives the query from R1, it processes it in the same way as R2 just did.

5. R2 now sends a query to R3. We'll assume R3 hasn't yet built it's query towards R3 (though it might have, but that doesn't make much difference in the end).

6. When R3 receives this query, it notes the local route is already in active state with an infinite metric. R3 will also clear R2 on the list of neighbors it needs to query. R3 now finds its list of neighbors to query is empty, so it builds a reply towards R1 and R2 with an infinite metric. This is going to tell R1 and R2 that R3 has no alternate path.

7. When R1 receives the reply from R3, it marks R3 off its list of neighbors it has queried about 192.168.1.0/24.

8. When R2 receives R3's reply, it marks R3 off its list of neighbors it has queried about 192.168.1.0/24. At this point, it isn't waiting on any other neighbors, so it will reply to R1 with an infinite metric, indicating it has no alternate path to 192.168.1.0/24.

9. When R1 receives R2's reply, it marks R2 off its list of neighbors it has queried about 192.168.1.0/24. R1 notes the list of queried neighbors is now empty, so it kills the SIA timers, and removes the route from the local routing table (which causes the routing table to check with the other routing protocols running locally for routes to the same destination).

Let's pause for a breath: At this point, the route is passive on all three routers. R2 and R3 have gone active, figured out they have no alternate route, and removed the route from their local tables. R1 still has the route in its local table, its just holding to send the update which normally follows a route moving from the active to the passive state.

10. R1 now sends an update for 192.168.1.0/24 with an infinite metric.

11. R2 and R3 don't do anything with this update, since they've already removed the route from their local tables.

Now, in reality, this last poison update isn't needed, because R2 and R3, the only neighbors R1 has, have already replied, and thus already know the state of things. Since R1 has already seen replies from R2 and R3, it will squash this last poison update, resulting in a log entry that says: "poison squash."

HTH

:-)

Russ

2 REPLIES
Gold

Re: eigrp convergence in triangle topology

Close enough.... Let me work through it, as well, since that might help.

1. R1 will notice it has lost it's connection to 192.168.1.0/24. It will examine it's topology table, and find it has no feasible successor, so it will mark the route active, and make the current cost infinite.

2. Because the topology table entry for 192.168.1.0/24 is now active, R1 will send queries to both R2 and R3. Since networks are never "perfect" in their timing, one of them will receive it before the other. Lets assume R2 receives it first.

3. When R2 receives this query, it examines its local topology table, and sees the query is from its successor, and it contains an infinite metric (R2's successor can no longer reach the destination). R2 will examine its topology table, and find it has no other path to 192.168.1.0/24, so it marks the route active.

4. When R3 receives the query from R1, it processes it in the same way as R2 just did.

5. R2 now sends a query to R3. We'll assume R3 hasn't yet built it's query towards R3 (though it might have, but that doesn't make much difference in the end).

6. When R3 receives this query, it notes the local route is already in active state with an infinite metric. R3 will also clear R2 on the list of neighbors it needs to query. R3 now finds its list of neighbors to query is empty, so it builds a reply towards R1 and R2 with an infinite metric. This is going to tell R1 and R2 that R3 has no alternate path.

7. When R1 receives the reply from R3, it marks R3 off its list of neighbors it has queried about 192.168.1.0/24.

8. When R2 receives R3's reply, it marks R3 off its list of neighbors it has queried about 192.168.1.0/24. At this point, it isn't waiting on any other neighbors, so it will reply to R1 with an infinite metric, indicating it has no alternate path to 192.168.1.0/24.

9. When R1 receives R2's reply, it marks R2 off its list of neighbors it has queried about 192.168.1.0/24. R1 notes the list of queried neighbors is now empty, so it kills the SIA timers, and removes the route from the local routing table (which causes the routing table to check with the other routing protocols running locally for routes to the same destination).

Let's pause for a breath: At this point, the route is passive on all three routers. R2 and R3 have gone active, figured out they have no alternate route, and removed the route from their local tables. R1 still has the route in its local table, its just holding to send the update which normally follows a route moving from the active to the passive state.

10. R1 now sends an update for 192.168.1.0/24 with an infinite metric.

11. R2 and R3 don't do anything with this update, since they've already removed the route from their local tables.

Now, in reality, this last poison update isn't needed, because R2 and R3, the only neighbors R1 has, have already replied, and thus already know the state of things. Since R1 has already seen replies from R2 and R3, it will squash this last poison update, resulting in a log entry that says: "poison squash."

HTH

:-)

Russ

New Member

Re: eigrp convergence in triangle topology

Thanks for the clarification.

Schilling

254
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies