cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
983
Views
0
Helpful
10
Replies

EIGRP LEAKING ROUTES

ochalmers
Level 1
Level 1

Is it possible to issue eigrp leaking routes on catalyst 6500 running IOS 12.2-33SXI9 on gigabitethernet interfaces? or is there another way to acomplish this?

Regards

Oscar

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Yep, my bad.  I saw there wasn't a commit to SXI for summary leaking (but there was for stub leaking) and made a bad assumption.  Apparently SXI got the summary leak enhancement through a sync from another branch instead of a direct commit and I didn't look far enough to find it via the sync.    Sorry for the mis-information.

I did, however, find your problem.  There is an outstanding defect that the summary-leak enhancement doesn't work on sub-interfaces (CSCsz90607).  This is undoubtedly what you're hitting.

Again, sorry for the mistake.

View solution in original post

10 Replies 10

Reza Sharifi
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

What do you mean by "EIGRP leaking routes"?

From one EIGRP domain to another?

Hi Sharifi, i need to publish a more accurate route through a summarization

What is the design look like?

What are you trying to accomplish?

I'll check when I get to the office tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure summary leaking should be in SXI9, which is running EIGRP release 5. I actually wrote the stub and summary leaking enhancement several years ago, which should have been well before rel 5. When you do the summary-address interface command do you see a leak-map option?

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

Hi Donald, this is what i see when i try to issue the command

er-mun(config)#int gigabitEthernet 3/0/0.2

er-mun(config-subif)#$address eigrp 4944 10.168.0.0 255.254.0.0 ?

  <1-255>  Administrative distance

 

er-mun(config)#int atM 1/1/0.41

er-mun(config-subif)#$address eigrp 4944 10.168.0.0 255.254.0.0 ?

  <1-255>  Administrative distance

 

It seems not to be available on this type of interfaces.

System image file is "sup-bootdisk:s72033-advipservicesk9_wan-mz.122-33.SXI9.bin"

er-mun#sh module

Mod Ports Card Type                              Model              Serial No.

--- ----- -------------------------------------- ------------------ -----------

  1    0  2 port adapter Enhanced FlexWAN        WS-X6582-2PA       JAE1127NX20

  2   48  48 port 10/100/1000mb EtherModule      WS-X6148-GE-TX     SAL1129V7XJ

  3    0  4-subslot SPA Interface Processor-400  7600-SIP-400       SAL1536PDES

  4    0  2 port adapter Enhanced FlexWAN        WS-X6582-2PA       JAE1130RHSG

  5   16  SFM-capable 16 port 1000mb GBIC        WS-X6516-GBIC      SAD054502YD

  8    2  Supervisor Engine 720 (Active)         WS-SUP720-3BXL     SAL1126SDG9

13    0  2 port adapter Enhanced FlexWAN        WS-X6582-2PA       JAE11054GE4

Regards

Oscar

Sorry about that, but it looks like you're out of luck.  I commited the Stub leaking enhancement first and it made it into SXI.  The summary leaking enhancement was added later and didn't make it into SXI.  IIRC, by the time we got the summary leaking change ready, SXI was closed to new features/featurettes and would only take fixes.  This didn't qualify. I might be wrong on the timing, but I'm certain that the enhancement wasn't added to SXI.

Donald, i try to issue the command on the same switch but using a serial interface and for some reason "i do not know" it's available.

er-mun(config)#int serial 13/0/1

er-mun(config-if)#ip summary-address eigrp 444 10.168.0.0 255.254.0.0 ?

  <1-255>   Administrative distance

  leak-map  Allow dynamic prefixes based on the leak-map

 

What could it be the reason????

Yep, my bad.  I saw there wasn't a commit to SXI for summary leaking (but there was for stub leaking) and made a bad assumption.  Apparently SXI got the summary leak enhancement through a sync from another branch instead of a direct commit and I didn't look far enough to find it via the sync.    Sorry for the mis-information.

I did, however, find your problem.  There is an outstanding defect that the summary-leak enhancement doesn't work on sub-interfaces (CSCsz90607).  This is undoubtedly what you're hitting.

Again, sorry for the mistake.

Hi Donald, you are absolutely right, i just test on a interface without the sub-interface configuration and it works!!!

Do you know if there is a workaround??? Maybe an IOS upgrade???

Thank you so much!!

Oscar

The bug is hasn't been fixed yet.  Talk to your account team to get some visibility on the customer impact so it gets some priority.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Review Cisco Networking products for a $25 gift card