I was doing some more indepth reading in EIGRP and thats what I had come to as well, but we had no auto-summary in the eigrp config.
I ended solving it by putting in a static route. Packets were getting in but not getting out. Keith On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, MADMAN wrote: |-> |-> auto summary, which is default, does that to/for you |-> |-> Dave |-> |->Keith Woodworth wrote: |->> |->> We had a /24 that was not being used in one part of our network any |->> longer. It was routed through 2 RSM's on a Cat5500 switch. |->> |->> As well the network was in an EIGRP AS that we do for IGP routing on both |->> RSM's. So the network was removed from the EIGRP system, a new static |->> route was put in on our gateway router for said network. |->> |->> Everything works on the new network except for getting to some internal |->> sites...The interesting part is when doing a sh ip route on the RSM's I |->> see this: |->> |->> D 208.181.160.0/24 is a summary, 1w4d, Null0 |->> |->> Now why did the RSM's suddenly route that network to null0? My workstation |->> is connected to the RSM's and I cannot ping any IP's on that subnet since |->> that network is now being routed to null. |->> |->> That network is definately gone from the EIGRP statement. Here is the |->> output of sho ip proto for the eigrp AS: |->> |->> Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100" |->> Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set |->> Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set |->> Default networks flagged in outgoing updates |->> Default networks accepted from incoming updates |->> EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0 |->> EIGRP maximum hopcount 100 |->> EIGRP maximum metric variance 1 |->> Redistributing: connected, eigrp 100 |->> Automatic network summarization is not in effect |->> Routing for Networks: |->> 209.53.131.0 |->> 209.53.132.0 |->> 209.53.133.0 |->> 209.53.134.0 |->> 209.53.135.0 |->> 208.181.161.0 |->> 64.0.0.0 |->> |->> ======= Cut -====== |->> |->> so what do I do about getting the RSMs to take out the routing statement |->> for that network? Would EIGRP have just a done an update when the network |->> statement was removed? |->> |->> Thanks for any input on this... |->> Keith |->> |-> |->-- |->David Madland |->Sr. Network Engineer |->CCIE# 2016 |->Qwest Communications Int. Inc. |->[EMAIL PROTECTED] |->612-664-3367 |-> |->"Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" |-> Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42559&t=42479 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
