Ugly routing table due to HSRP

[pblower]

Due to HSRP running on my two 65xx switchs that are trunked together, I now have a whole slough of feasible successor routes that appear in my routing table. Having them in the eigrp topology table is no big deal, but it is really ugly in the routing table. Doing traceroutes can be very confusing to people that are not aware of how things work since whichever vlan is used to route from one switch to the next, it is still always traversing the same physical link. (Once my migration is complete so that all routing is done on one box and the other is just the standby for all vlans, the routing table will still be ugly).

So I'm thinking that if I select one route and alter the weighting so that it is always used for routing, and all my other routes become successors rather than feasible successors, then my routing table will be cleaned up without deteriorating performance.

Any pitfalls, suggestions, or experience with this sort of thing?

Thanks,

Phil.

[pblower]

To be clear, all the routes aren't caused by HSRP but because I now have two routers on each vlan. (I just happened to get two routers on each vlan when I implemented HSRP).

What would happen if I changed all my vlan interfaces (except Vlan 1) to be passive? It should make all EIGRP updates flow across only one segment, but it probably wouldn't clean up the routing table.

Any thoughts?

[ruwhite]

Passiving some number of interfaces would clean up the topo table--as long as you don't want user traffic to flow across the vlan (in other words, you only want traffic to and from hosts and servers attached to the vlan itself), go ahead and passive interface it. EIGRP won't build a neighbor adjacency across it at all.

Russ