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 184.108.40.206 255.255.255.0 [ip route 220.127.116.11 255.255.255.0 18.104.22.168]
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 22.214.171.124/24 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 Redistributing via eigrp 1 Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 126.96.36.199 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 188.8.131.52/24 Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 Redistributing via eigrp 1 Advertised by eigrp 1 route-map STATIC-INTO-EIGRP-MAP Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 184.108.40.206 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.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...