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

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

Static route redistributing when it shouldn't

Hi

 

I have an EIGRP network with some static routes that are redistributed in to EIGRP using a route map and ACL, however I have just created a new static route and I've noticed it appear in our EIGRP, with the status redistributing via EIGRP though the new route is not included in the ACL !!

 

Our EIGRP config:

redistribute static route-map STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-MAP

 

Our route map:

route-map STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-MAP, permit, sequence 10
  Match clauses:
    ip address (access-lists): STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-ACL
  Set clauses:
  Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes

 

Our ACL (STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-ACL) does not include the new route.


    10 permit *.*.*.*, wildcard bits 0.0.255.255
    20 permit *.*.*.*, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (51 matches)
    30 permit *.*.*.*, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (51 matches)
 

Has anyone seen this occurring for them?

Thanks

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone's tags (1)
7 REPLIES
Hall of Fame Super Blue

SteveA few more details would

Steve

A few more details would help eg. -

1) the actual subnets in the acl

2) the static route you added

3) the EIGRP configuration in terms of the "network ..." statements

Jon

New Member

Sorry Jon, the ACL does not

Sorry Jon, the ACL does not include the new subnet (first place I looked!) and there is no network statement in the EIGRP config, if there was though, it wouldn't appear as redistributed?...

 

ACL:

Standard IP access list STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-ACL
    10 permit 163.160.0.0, wildcard bits 0.0.255.255
    20 permit 172.16.92.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (51 matches)
    30 permit 172.16.94.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (51 matches)
    40 permit 172.17.8.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (51 matches)
    50 permit 172.22.56.0, wildcard bits 0.0.0.255 (51 matches)
    60 permit 192.168.255.8, wildcard bits 0.0.0.7 (51 matches)
    70 permit 192.168.255.32, wildcard bits 0.0.0.3 (204 matches)
    80 permit 172.31.0.0, wildcard bits 0.0.255.255 log (34 matches)
    85 permit 172.30.0.0, wildcard bits 0.0.255.255 log (41 matches)

New subnet is 172.38.5.0 255.255.255.0 [ip route 172.38.5.0 255.255.255.0 172.38.0.2]

No network statements (I actually as a normal course of action before creating a network check for an existing route and anything in the running config relating to the new address and there is nothing else with '172.38.5' in the running config)

 

Many thanks

Silver

Could you post entire EIGRP

Could you post entire EIGRP config?

BR,

Dragan

HTH, Dragan
Hall of Fame Super Blue

Steveand there is no network

Steve

and there is no network statement in the EIGRP config, if there was though, it wouldn't appear as redistributed?...

I just wanted to check because with EIGRP if the static route uses an interface as the next hop and there is a corresponding "network ..." statement in the EIGRP configuration then it will be redistributed.

Your route though uses a next hop IP so yes it shouldn't be redistributing it.

Not sure why it is doing that to be honest.

Jon

New Member

Just entered a line in the

Just entered a line in the ACL, for the corresponding redistributing route map and now the router appears as "advertised".

 

Show ip route prior to entering ACL statement to include in the router map:

Routing entry for 172.38.5.0/24
  Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
  Redistributing via eigrp 1
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 172.38.0.2
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

 

Show ip route after to entering ACL statement to include in the router map:

Routing entry for 172.38.5.0/24
  Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
  Redistributing via eigrp 1
  Advertised by eigrp 1 route-map STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-MAP
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 172.38.0.2
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

 

I wasn't aware that EIGRP would still be aware of the route in it's local EIGRP without there being the appropriate ACL statement if it's restricted by one?  Though now the route is advertised elsewhere in the EIGRP domain but it still concerns me there was an entry in the local config...

 

Thanks

Hall of Fame Super Blue

SteveI wasn't aware that

Steve

I wasn't aware that EIGRP would still be aware of the route in it's local EIGRP without there being the appropriate ACL statement if it's restricted by one?

I don't think EIGRP does have it in it's topology table.

I setup a quick lab ie.

R1 -> R2 -> R3

R1 & R2 are running EIGRP. On R2 i configured three static routes pointing to R3 and redistributed two of them into EIGRP using a route map as you have done.

On R2 when i did a "sh ip route" or the static route that was not redistributed i got the same output as you see.

But when i did a "sh ip eigrp topoloy all-links", which contains all the EIGRP routes, the static that was not redistributed was not there.

It may be, although this is just speculation, that the redistribute static statement on it's own causes the "sh ip route" to produce that output but then because of the route map the static route not included in the acl isn't actually redistributed into EIGRP. 

Have to say it's something i have never really noticed before.

You learn something new everyday smiley

Jon

 

New Member

Thanks very much for taking

Thanks very much for taking the time on this one for me - I agree with you, must be reffering to statics as redistributed as the line redistribute static ("route map") is in the EIGRP config.

 

Thanks again :)

143
Views
5
Helpful
7
Replies