More info. The router does not appear to realize that the "directly"
connected next-hop address is unreachable.
RouterA#sho ip route 10.2.7.75
Routing entry for 10.0.0.0/8
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
Redistributing via eigrp 1, rip
Advertised by eigrp 1
rip
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Null0
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
So, even though the interface directly connected to the next-hop address is
down, it thinks it is still reachable via a static routing pointing to
Null0, a connected interface. Does this seem irrational to anyone but me??
If the next hop is down but there is a valid next-hop in the eigrp topology
table, I want it to take that route, not the default route! Dang it all!
:-)
I still don't understand this behavior at all, but perhaps this will provide
a clue to some of you.
Going insane,
John
> Ok, this is completely baking my noodle. If someone can solve this, I
will
> fly to your location and kiss you on the forehead.
>
> Here is the layout: RouterA has two frame relay PVCs, point to point,
that
> go to router B. EIGRP is running on one link but not the other. (RIP is
> running on routerA but is not currently being used on any links.) We
have
> static routes for the traffic we want to take the second PVC. At router
A I
> have the following:
>
> ip route 10.2.50.70 255.255.255.255 10.2.70.75 50
> ip route 10.2.50.70 255.255.255.255 10.1.111.60 100
> ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 Null0 (don't ask why this is here, it just
is
> <g>)
>
> 10.2.50.70 is the loopback address of router B, and 10.2.70.75 is the IP
> address at Router B's second PVC. 10.1.111.60 is the secondary dial
backup
> route. So far, so good. Now for the part that is completely freakin' me
> out.
>
> The entire circuit at A that has the second PVC to B goes down, and
> subsequently all PVCs on that circuit go down. The main circuit and its
> associated PVCs are still up. Remember, eigrp is running on this link.
> So...
>
> 10.2.70.75 is no longer available, that PVC is down. That static route
is
> removed from the routing table. There should now be an eigrp-learned
route
> with an AD of 90 for 10.2.50.70 on the main PVC. This is NOT happening!
I
> do a show ip route 10.2.50.70 and I get the following:
>
> RouterA#show ip route 10.2.50.70
> Routing entry for 10.0.0.0/8
> Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
> Redistributing via eigrp 1, rip
> Advertised by eigrp 1
> rip
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * directly connected, via Null0
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
>
> The secondary static route is also not in use because in this scenario,
the
> remote branch circuit is not completely down, and dial backup has not
> occured. All of their other PVCs are up.
>
> Now, take a look at this:
>
> RouterA#sho ip eigrp topo 10.2.50.0 255.255.255.0
> IP-EIGRP topology entry for 10.2.50.0/24
> State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 2297856
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> 10.2.10.75 (Serial1/1.27), from 10.2.10.75, Send flag is 0x0
> Composite metric is (2297856/128256), Route is Internal
> Vector metric:
> Minimum bandwidth is 1544 Kbit
> Total delay is 25000 microseconds
> Reliability is 255/255
> Load is 12/255
> Minimum MTU is 1500
> Hop count is 1
>
> There is a valid route in the topology table, but it is not being entered
> into the routing table. Why not? Why is it choosing the less specific
> 10.0.0.0/8 route to Null0? Ok, now it gets even stranger...
>
> Remember the static routes, one with an AD of 50 and the other with an AD
of
> 100? Once I removed them manually by typing no ip route 10.2.50.70 etc.,
> the valid route in the eigrp topology table was entered into the routing
> table. What difference does this make? Those static routes weren't even
> being used because the next hop addresses were unreachable. Why did the
> router wait for me to remove them manually before it entered the
dynamically
> learned route into the table?
>
> I just do not understand this behavior, and it is certainly not what I
would
> expect. I have a couple of guesses, but I can't follow them to any
logical
> conclusion.
>
> Might this have something to do with the fact that the primary route is a
> static host route and not a route for a specific subnet? Might this
behave
> differently if I change the static route to 10.2.50.0 255.255.255.0?
Then
> it would match exactly to the route available in the topology table. I
> don't see why that matters, but who knows...
>
> Also, RIP is being redistributed into eigrp. We haven't finished
> implementing RIP yet, but it is configured on routerA. We will be adding
> some 675 model routers later and they can only do RIP. I don't see how
this
> would affect things, but perhaps it is.
>
> Please, please, someone....help me before my brain completely melts down!
>
> Many thousands of thanks,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
