Bruno, I think lower AS wins. Try to change default distance on R1 for EIGRP 3 and see. The command is "distance 89 10.1.13.3 0.0.0.0"
Regards, Piotr 2011/1/28 Bruno <[email protected]> > Not too much related with security > > There are 4 routes, in circle shape: R1>R2>R4 and R1>R3>R4. > - R2 - > R1 - - R4 > - R3 - > > > I configured a EIGRP AS 1 for R1-R2-R4 and AS 3 for R1-R3-R4. It means > router R1 and R4 have 2 ASs running on each > At R4 I created a loopback with address 4.4.4.4/32 and added it to both > eigrp AS's > > R4 > router eigrp 1 > network 4.4.4.4 0.0.0.0 > network 10.0.24.0 0.0.0.255 > no auto-summary > router eigrp 3 > network 4.4.4.4 0.0.0.0 > network 10.0.34.0 0.0.0.255 > no auto-summary > > The interesting is on router R1, I am getting the following > > IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(1.1.1.1) > P 4.4.4.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200 > via 10.0.12.2 (435200/409600), FastEthernet0/0 > > IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(3)/ID(1.1.1.1) > P 4.4.4.0/24, 0 successors, FD is Inaccessible > via 10.0.13.3 (435200/179200), FastEthernet0/1 > > I have read about FD inaccessible and it seems the route is just preferable > to go over R2 instead of R3 and in case of R2 failure, It would have R3 > forwarding. I tested that and it worked fine. > > The question is: > Why did EIGRP choose to forward over R2 with AD 409600 instead of R3 with > AD 179200? I changed the bandwidth at R3 to be more attractive but even > after this change R2 is still the chosen guy. The FD is the same to both. I > did not make any changes on K values > Is there any precedence in case of match to go over the minor AS number? > > Any comments would help > > -- > Bruno Fagioli (by Jaunty Jackalope) > Cisco Security Professional > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
