>>> SNIP
Well, in my situation, as soon as eigrp AS 2 is
implemented on B and C,
B loses all the routes advertised by C until I clear
the eigrp
neighbors. At that point this begins to work
correctly.
>>> END SNIP.
I don't think you've got anything wrong here, but you
maybe just pushing EIGRP a bit to far without outside
assistance i.e Clearing the neighbor table.
Why not try taking off AS 1 first and then add AS 1
and AS 2 to Router B. Try fiddling different
combinations.
My understanding is that initially i.e before you add
AS 2 the multicast Hello packet will just contain AS 1
and when you add AS 2 to B the Hello packet should
contain 2 entries as opposed to two separate hello
packets. (If you get my meaning) !!!
Regards,
Phil.
--- John Neiberger
wrote: > Let's say I have the following topology:
>
> A
> |
> |
> B----------C
> |
> |
> D
>
> Routers A, B, and C are participating in EIGRP AS 1,
> so those three
> routers are aware of everything except routes on the
> other side of D.
> Then, I add EIGRP AS 2 to routers B, C, and D but
> not A. It's my
> understanding that Router A will only be aware of
> the directly connected
> links of routers B and C, and router D will only
> know of the directly
> connected links of routers B and C. Router A should
> not be aware of any
> link on router D except for the B--D link.
>
> Now, B has two topology tables with some duplicate
> routes learned from
> router C, or at least it should. As soon as I turn
> on eigrp AS 2 on B
> and C, no routing information should be lost,
> correct? If Router C is
> advertising a given subnet via eigrp AS 1 and AS 2,
> router B should
> always be aware of it no matter what, right?
>
> Well, in my situation, as soon as eigrp AS 2 is
> implemented on B and C,
> B loses all the routes advertised by C until I clear
> the eigrp
> neighbors. At that point this begins to work
> correctly.
>
> Then, when I removed eigrp AS 2--leaving eigrp AS
> 1-- on B and C, those
> routes disappear again! As before, clearing the
> eigrp neighbors
> resolves the issue but I don't understand why this
> would be happening.
> I believe it's a bug but I'm not sure. There are
> some bugs related to
> routes being in the topology table that aren't being
> inserted into the
> routing table, but I don't know for certain those
> apply here.
>
> Is my thinking correct here or am I missing
> something?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> p.s. Don't ask why I'm doing this, just go with me
> on it, okay?? ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13851&t=13774
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
