If the number of prefixes are small, and your on Cisco gear, take a look at IP SLA as an option for manipulating static routes. Basically it'll allow you to setup a probe, and based on the result of the probe, dynamically populate a given static route in the routing table or not.
David. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Andrey Khomyakov < [email protected]> wrote: > The goal is to withdraw the prefixes should any part of the connection go > down. > Unfortunately router1--router2--firewall is part of a production setup and > not easily changed. The idea is really to have something like this (ideally > without router2): > > router1-router2-firewall-router3 > | | > router4-firewall-router5 > > I just wanted to check if I'm missing some knowledge about redistributing > BGP into EIGRP. It appears that there is really no way to manipulate > next-hop value. (no ip next-hop-self eigrp 1 is not really an option > because > there are many more prefixes coming from other routers that are being > redistributed to router2 from router1) > > I will see if the network will allow BGP on router2. That seems to be the > only clean solution for this. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:25 PM, David Swafford <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > What's the real goal behind this? What your describing sounds like a > > horrible band-aid.... > > > > David. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Andrey Khomyakov < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi nanog > >> > >> I need to advertise EIGRP route with a different next-hop value than > self > >> > >> Due to how the connections are setup, I have to run BGP between two > peers > >> that are 3 hops away from each other. > >> > >> router1--router2--firewall--router3 > >> I'm running EBGP between router1 and router3 > >> router1 is redistributing into EIGRP that's running with router2 > >> > >> The problem is that now router2 thinks that router3 routes are reachable > >> via > >> router1 so I have myself a route loop. > >> > >> Is there a way to advertise an EIGRP route with next hop of router3 (or > >> firewall for that matter) rather than router1 which is what EIGRP does > by > >> default > >> > >> Thank you in advance for advice. > >> > >> -- > >> Andrey Khomyakov > >> [[email protected]] > >> > > > > > > > -- > Andrey Khomyakov > [[email protected]] >
