hard problem of eigrp summary

[henrybb]

I config "ip summary " on s1/0:1,but why ios can't generate summary of 10.72.0.0/16 and can generate summary of 10.71.0.0/16 ?

RTA#sh ip eigrp int

IP-EIGRP interfaces for process 1

Xmit Queue Mean Pacing Time Multicast Pending

Interface Peers Un/Reliable SRTT Un/Reliable Flow Timer Routes

Fa0/0 1 0/0 1 0/10 50 0

BR0/0 0 0/0 0 5/10 0 0

Fa0/1 1 0/0 1 0/10 50 0

Se1/0:1 1 0/0 50 0/12 216 0

Lo0 0 0/0 0 0/10 0 0

RTA#sh int f0/1

FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up

Hardware is AmdFE, address is 0001.96db.0701 (bia 0001.96db.0701)

Internet address is 10.72.195.1/30

RTA#sh run int s1/0:1

Building configuration...

Current configuration:

!

interface Serial1/0:1

bandwidth 1984

ip address 10.1.1.30 255.255.255.252

ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.72.0.0 255.255.0.0 5

ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.71.0.0 255.255.0.0 5

ip mroute-cache

end

RTA#sh ip eigrp to 10.71.0.0 255.255.0.0

IP-EIGRP topology entry for 10.71.0.0/16

State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 28160

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

0.0.0.0 (Null0), from 0.0.0.0, Send flag is 0x0

Composite metric is (128256/0), Route is Internal

Vector metric:

Minimum bandwidth is 10000000 Kbit

Total delay is 5000 microseconds

Reliability is 255/255

Load is 1/255

Minimum MTU is 1514

Hop count is 0

RTA#sh ip eigrp to 10.72.0.0 255.255.0.0

% Route not in topology table

[deilert]

you can summarize both by

ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.71.0.0 255.254.0.0 5

[henrybb]

I can't do because 10.71.0.0/16 is production .

If I do "ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.71.0.0 255.254.0.0 5 ", and ios don't generate the summary route , maybe I will say goodbye to my boss.

thanks.

[matthew.scala]

Deilert,

Wouldn't you be defining 10.70.0.0 & 10.71.0.0 with the 255.254.0.0 mask?

[ruwhite]

Could you post a show ip route 10.72.0.0 255.255.0.0 longer and a show ip route 10.71.0.0 255.255.0.0 longer, if it's not too much information. It seems like it should be summarizing, since you have at least one interface in the range.

Are you using an admin distance on the end of the summary for a reason? I know that 5 is low, but it could be that you have a lower admin distance static or connected in this range knocking the summary out (though this normally wouldn't cause the summary not to be built, but rather just prevent it from being installed in the routing table). Could you try it without the admin distance?

:-)

Russ.W

[henrybb]

There are static route for 10.71.0.0/16 and 10.72.0.0/16,I¡¡also think it should be summarizing,so I think it maybe this bug:CSCdp93649

RTA>sh ip route 10.72.0.0 255.255.0.0 longer-prefixes

Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP

D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area

N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2

E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP

i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter area

* - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR

P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is 10.1.202.29 to network 0.0.0.0

10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 54 subnets, 10 masks

S 10.72.0.0/16 [1/0] via 10.71.5.253

C 10.72.195.0/30 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1

RTA>sh ip route 10.71.0.0 255.255.0.0 longer-prefixes

Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP

D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area

N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2

E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP

i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter area

* - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR

P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is 10.1.202.29 to network 0.0.0.0

10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 54 subnets, 10 masks

C 10.71.5.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0

S 10.71.0.0/16 [1/0] via 10.71.5.253

C 10.71.50.1/32 is directly connected, Loopback0

RTA>sh ip eigrp to ze

IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(18)/ID(10.71.5.246)

[ruwhite]

....

[ruwhite]

Have you tried it without the static routes? I'm not certain why you'd run both--either redistribute the statics, or configure the summaries. With the lower admin distance static route there, the EIGRP summary route isn't going to make it into the routing table, so it shouldn't be advertised to a peer anyway. The summary will block the generation of longer prefixes out that interface, but you could do that with a distribute list instead (?).

What version of code are you running? CSCdp93649 should be integrated into 12.1 and forward, from about 12.1(04) or so, looking at the record.

:-)

Russ.W