R1 and R2 are propagating a redistributed (static) default route to R3 and R4. R3 and R4 now get each 2 default routes. Only one is installed in the eigrp topoloy database. This one goes to the main routing table (R3--> next hop R1, R4--> next hop R2).
If I am shutting down interface on R3, default route pointing to R1, R3 doesn't do anything with the default route arriving from R4. The same happens on R4.
Someone who sounded very knowledgeable in another forum was discussing EIGRP default route distribution the other day. I plan to take some of what I learned from him into the lab, but haven't had a chance yet. Thus, this is purely a theoretical suggestion:
try enabling 'default-information allow out' on routers R3 & R4 and see if they propagate what they learn to one another.
Me again. I finally got some routers configed up for EIGRP and did some experimenting with default routes (boy did I re-learn a few things I thought I already knew). Anyway, I tried something very similar to your setup. If you do a 'sh ip eigrp top detail' you should see that both routes are actually in the topology database (the secondary may not show up without the 'detail' keyword because it isn't a feasible successor). Once you kill the successor route, the other finds its way into both the topo and forwarding tables via the query process very quickly. So you should find out why that secondary default route isn't finding it's way in the topo table to start with (if in fact it isn't). Are R3 and R4 successfully forming a good neighborship?
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...