Unfortunately, EIGRP on the ASA doesn't appear to support the max-paths command.
Both physical interfaces are in the same VLAN, connected to different switches that are trunked together...and I understand that only one switchport "should" be active, and it is shown as such when doing a "sh int redun1 detail", but it appears to be learning (and using) routes from both routers that are on the VLAN. Additionally, I'm not sure HSRP would help me in a situation like this, since the way I understand it the ASA will still learn both routers "real" IP address and will form a neighbor to each one. I would like to avoid calling out the neighbor specifically, if I can help it. Maybe I could play around with the RSTP priority on the particular switch uplink ports to make it so that one of the ports is blocking - that way if a switch dies, that port will stop blocking and then converge. It may take a little longer, but I believe the end result would be the same...but I'm not sure this is any better than calling out the neighbor specifically (the HSRP address). -----Original Message----- From: Peter Rathlev [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:23 AM To: Jason Link Cc: Cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASA / EIGRP / Redundant Interfaces On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 14:57 -0500, Jason Link wrote: > With an ASA running a redundant physical interface pair for the Inside > interface, each link connected to a separate switch which is connected > to a separate router, and everything running EIGRP, I get multiple > routes (2) to the same destination subnet, one for each of the connected > routers. This is obviously causing problems, and I can't seem to find a > way to resolve it. Setting delay on the physical interfaces doesn't > seem to take effect, and there is no variance sub-command so I can't > just force one route. This needs to function in a redundant situation, > as in if I lose a router or switch everything will continue to function > (hence the redundant interface). I tried google and cisco and found > nothing of any significance...anyone got any ideas? AFAIK the "standard" way of doing this would be a shared VLAN on the inside and then HSRP or similar on the routers. Any reason for not doing that? Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
