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

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 - Null Route Redistribution

Hi All,

I have some questions about EIGRP redistributing a null route. I understand the concept of the null routes with route summarization but I am confused on the behavior in this case.

The goal was to not spit out 10.x.x.x stuff to the ISP router if it wasn't in the routing table. The problem was it redistributed that route into the routing table and told everyone to send stuff to him who deposited it in the bit bucket. Changing the EIGRP network to 10.2.x.x corrected my problem. My thought is it looked at the Null 0 interface as directly connected and had as its IP address or something like that. With that, it put the network in the routing table and dumped it to Null0 when it got there.


- router connected to internet using gre/ipsec vpn tunnels to 4 other routers

- default route set to isp router

- internal LAN set to 10.2.x.1

- eigrp set to network

- null route created for null 0

- no route redistribution set

Here is an upstream routers routing table when network was in place. Yes, it does do some redistribution but this route was put there by the router with the null route.

Router1#sh ip route

Routing entry for, 636 known subnets

Attached (117 connections)

Variably subnetted with 6 masks

Redistributing via eigrp 1

D10.0.0.0/8 [90/12902400] via 10.2.x.173, 00:29:00, Tunnel192

Can someone enlighten me to why this happened? Why would it redistribute that?

Thanks for your help.


Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: EIGRP - Null Route Redistribution


I am not sure how completely it answers your question, but I believe that it would be helpful to differentiate between EIGRP "redistributing" and EIGRP "advertising". EIGRP redistributes when it learns some route from another source (another dynamic protocol or from a static route) and then advertises that route within EIGRP. These redistributed routes have administrative distance of 170 within EIGRP. What you have shown in your post is not a redistributed route but is a route advertised from a network statement with administrative distance of 90.

One way to fix it was to change the mask used on the network statement so that EIGRP did not match the null 0 interface. Another way to fix it would have been to create a static route for with null 0 as the next hop, rather than assigning as the address of the null 0 interface.



Hall of Fame Super Bronze

Re: EIGRP - Null Route Redistribution

The behavior you are seeing is announcing a network within EIGRP with auto-summary turned on (default).

To correct this, you need to go into the router eigrp process and enter no auto-summary.


New Member

Re: EIGRP - Null Route Redistribution

Thanks for the replies.

I forgot to mention, no auto-summary is enabled on the router in question. The issue is that it saw the static null route for and advertised it out to peer routers. I apologize for saying redistributed....I meant advertised. Once I change the network statement to something other than, it doesn't advertise out.

Also, I didn't apply any addresses to the Null 0 interface. The only thing I did was create a null route (ip route null0).

I'm still lost on why it did this. It doesn't make sense that it advertised that null route out....unless any null route is automatically advertised out.

It was definately related to the network statement matching the route for


Hall of Fame Super Silver

Re: EIGRP - Null Route Redistribution


I thought I understood in the earlier post that you had applied the address to the null 0 interface. Thanks for the clarification that it was a static route with null 0 next hop.

I believe that the explanation of the behavior is that when there is a static route to an interface, and when the network in the static route matches the network statement in EIGRP then EIGRP will advertise that network. Your fix was to change the mask in the network statement so that it no longer matched the address in the static route.

It is not that any null route is advertised. But a static route to an interface where the network in the static route matches the network statement is what causes it to be advertised.



CreatePlease login to create content