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 !!
New subnet is 220.127.116.11 255.255.255.0 [ip route 18.104.22.168 255.255.255.0 22.214.171.124]
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)
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.
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 126.96.36.199/24 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 Redistributing via eigrp 1 Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206/24 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 Redistributing via eigrp 1 Advertised by eigrp 1 route-map STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-MAP Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 220.127.116.11 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...
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.
This is actually a pretty cool feature, i didn't even know it existed until I was looking for a solution to advertise a subnet (prefix in BGP talk), only if a certain condition existed. This is exactly what conditional advertisements does
j ai une question j ai achete un routeur cisco 887VA-k9 , je le configuré avec la configuration ci- dessous
si je le lier avec mon pc portable sur l un de ses ports directement ça marche toute est bien ( la connexion internet + m...
Attached policy provides CLI access to the Cisco 4G router over text messaging. Two files are in the attached .tar file:
2. PDF with instructions on how to load and use the .tcl file.