Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > EIGRP Question.

Reply
Thread Tools

EIGRP Question.

 
 
cozzmo1@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-07-2006
Looking at this, Could someone please look at my notes in parentheses
and tell me if I got this correct?

If the AD (advertised distance) is less than the FD (feasible Distance)
of the best route, then it is a feasible successor.
The successor is the best route and is put into the IP routing table.

Langley#show ip eigrp topology
P 10.1.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 768
via 10.1.3.1 (768/256), Serial0 (This is the successor,
currently used route)
via 10.1.5.2 (1280/256), Serial1 (256 < 768, this is a FS).

P 172.16.90.0 255.255.255.0, 2 successors, FD is 0 (am I correct in
assuming that the FD is really 46251776?)
via 172.16.80.28 (46251776/46226176), Ethernet0 (This is the
successor)
via 172.16.81.28 (46251776/46226176), Ethernet1 (This is the
successor)
via 172.16.80.31 (46277376/46251776), Serial0 (not a FS, as
the AD = FD)


Thanks
crzzy1

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thrill5
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2006
You are correct. Not sure why the FD is reported as 0 for the 172.16.90.0
route. Could be a bug in your IOS version.

Scott
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Looking at this, Could someone please look at my notes in parentheses
> and tell me if I got this correct?
>
> If the AD (advertised distance) is less than the FD (feasible Distance)
> of the best route, then it is a feasible successor.
> The successor is the best route and is put into the IP routing table.
>
> Langley#show ip eigrp topology
> P 10.1.2.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 768
> via 10.1.3.1 (768/256), Serial0 (This is the successor,
> currently used route)
> via 10.1.5.2 (1280/256), Serial1 (256 < 768, this is a FS).
>
> P 172.16.90.0 255.255.255.0, 2 successors, FD is 0 (am I correct in
> assuming that the FD is really 46251776?)
> via 172.16.80.28 (46251776/46226176), Ethernet0 (This is the
> successor)
> via 172.16.81.28 (46251776/46226176), Ethernet1 (This is the
> successor)
> via 172.16.80.31 (46277376/46251776), Serial0 (not a FS, as
> the AD = FD)
>
>
> Thanks
> crzzy1
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cozzmo1@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2006

I think that perhaps since this has 2 load balancing successors which
both have equal cost AD and FD, the route just has an incorrect zero
for the FD.
I wonder if you had unequal cost successors (using the variance
command) if they too would have an FD of zero then.

P 172.16.90.0 255.255.255.0, 2 successors, FD is 0 (am I correct in
assuming that the FD is really 46251776?)
via 172.16.80.28 (46251776/46226176), Ethernet0 (This is the
successor)
via 172.16.81.28 (46251776/46226176), Ethernet1 (This is the
successor)

 
Reply With Quote
 
cozzmo1@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-10-2006
One other question,

Why does the last entry show up (via 172.16.80.31)?
Wouldn't you need "#show ip eigrp topology all-links" in order to see
that which is not a feasible successor? and yet, there it is.

According to my text,
routes that are not successors or feasible successors are not shown in
#show ip eigrp topology
yet these routes can be found in
#show ip eigrp topology all-links


thanks,
crzzy1

 
Reply With Quote
 
mos33 mos33 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8
 
      09-07-2008
I wants to ask :
what happen if the feasible distance equal the advertised distance ??
in this case the neighbor is considered as feasible successor??
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EIGRP, Want to prevent any EIGRP traffic to a interface BG Cisco 3 02-09-2006 08:05 PM
redundancy/failover/load balancing with eigrp examples???? David Cisco 0 11-12-2003 04:23 PM
Re: EiGRP authentication question Hansang Bae Cisco 3 10-16-2003 05:19 AM
Redistribution between IS-IS, EIGRP & OSPF Sam Soh Cisco 5 08-15-2003 02:03 AM
dialer watch eigrp and custom queueing Kenny D Cisco 1 07-14-2003 11:20 AM



Advertisments