Without being even close to touching the shoes of an EIGRP expert, I would
say that it is probably pretty normal to have to clear something when you
make a drastic change to the routing protocols running on your router(s).
Adding or removing networks shouldn't cause any trouble, but introducing or
removing a whole AS on the router is a major change.
You can compare it to when you start adding 'next-hop-self' or 'no
synchronization' on your BGP routers, you will have to clear the BGP.
Ole
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ole Drews Jensen
Systems Network Manager
CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I
RWR Enterprises, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.RouterChief.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEED A JOB ???
http://www.oledrews.com/job
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Multiple EIGRP Processes [7:13774]
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?? ;-)
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13779&t=13774
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
