R2
loop = 222.222.222.2/32
IGRP 100
loopback is in the igrp domain

R3
loop = 222.222.222.3/32
IGRP 100
EIGRP 200
loopback is in the eigrp domain

R2 SHOULD be advertising 222.222.222.0/24 to R3. And it is.

However, R3 is also advertising 222.222.222.0/24 to R2

Split horizon IS enable. I checked that.

I watched debug traces for an hour, and was writing my post when it occurred
to me that eigrp was interacting with igrp.

     222.222.222.0/24 is variably subnetted, 3 subnets, 2 masks
C       222.222.222.4/32 is directly connected, Loopback1001
O IA    222.222.222.5/32 [110/65] via 199.45.1.5, 10:53:34, Serial1
I       222.222.222.0/24 is possibly down,
          routing via 199.34.1.3, Serial0
     199.34.1.0/29 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       199.34.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0
     199.45.1.0/27 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       199.45.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1
C    199.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, TokenRing0
Router_2#

     222.222.222.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
C       222.222.222.3/32 is directly connected, Loopback1001
I       222.222.222.0/24 [100/8976] via 199.34.1.4, 00:02:19, Serial0
     199.34.1.0/29 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       199.34.1.0 is directly connected, Serial0
     199.35.1.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C       199.35.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1
C    199.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, TokenRing0
C    193.1.1.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback1
Router_3#

the "possibly down" moves from router to router slowly, as the dead time
expires.

the "problem" as I see it, it that EIGRP and IGRP are interacting. If I
remove 222.222.222.0 from the eigrp process, the problem disappears.

as a matter of intellect, it could well be a split horizon type issue, in
that both routers believe they are the source of 222.222.222.0 ( igrp on r2
and eigrp on r3 ) on the other hand, automatic summarization was turned off.

in my mind, there is some thing happening within the code that is the cause
of this problem. as I said, I thought igrp and eigrp interacted only if both
were in the same AS on the same router.



""Larry Letterman""  wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> r3 sends to r2, then r2 sends back to r3..
> you sure about that...split horizon should be enabled for
> eigrp and igrp..and igrp and eigrp will work together in the
> same as number..not sure about different as #'s....
>
> Larry Letterman
> Network Engineer
> Cisco Systems
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: The Long and Winding Road
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:04 PM
>   Subject: Off Topic - just screwing around and what do I see? [7:64449]
>
>
>   three routers in a circle. but that's irrelevant.
>
>   inbound from r3-------r1--r2-----r3----->back to r1
>
>
>   I have IGRP between two of the routers. I have loopback on each of the
two
>   routers -- 222.222.222.x/32
>
>   watching the 222.222.222.0/24 subnet advertisement. R2 sends it to R3
and
> R3
>   sends it to R2
>
>   ???????????????????????????
>
>   wait a minute - since when does EIGRP automatically redistribute into
IGRP,
>   even when the AS numbers are DIFFERENT????????
>
>   router eigrp 200
>    passive-interface default
>    no passive-interface Serial1
>    network 199.35.1.0
>    network 222.222.222.0
>    no auto-summary
>    no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
>   !
>   router igrp 100
>    passive-interface default
>    no passive-interface Serial0
>    network 199.34.1.0
>   !
>   Router_3#sh ip route 222.222.222.0
>   Routing entry for 222.222.222.0/24, 2 known subnets
>     Attached (1 connections)
>     Variably subnetted with 2 masks
>     Redistributing via eigrp 200
>     Advertised by igrp 100
>
>   ????????????????
>
>   well, at least IGRP isn't in the Lab any longer......
>
>   --
>   TANSTAAFL
>   "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64478&t=64478
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to