I have a 3560 with IP base that is acting as a true EIGRP stub router today. It advertises local routes to the upstream service provider router and receives a default route.
Now I want to connect a 3900 ISR as a voice gateway. The 3560 does not seem to be advertising any routes to the 3900. Ok the EIGRP stub doc says this:
Only specified routes are propagated from the remote (stub) router. The router responds to queries for summaries, connected routes, redistributed static routes, external routes, and internal routes with the message "inaccessible." A router that is configured as a stub will send a special peer information packet to all neighboring routers to report its status as a stub router.
# Any neighbor that receives a packet informing it of the stub status will not query the stub router for any routes, and a router that has a stub peer will not query that peer. The stub router will depend on the distribution router to send the proper updates to all peers.
I guess I don't understand why the stub advertises local routes to the upstream ISP router but does not seem to advertise routes to the 3900. Does the stub identify the ISP router as the distribution router somehow, thus differentiating it from the 3900? If so, how is this done?
show ip eigrp neighbor detail on the 3900:
EIGRP-IPv4 Neighbors for AS(100)
H Address Interface Hold Uptime SRTT RTO Q Seq
(sec) (ms) Cnt Num
we have 5 sites connected with a combination of direct fiber and Service Provider Ethernet. The equipmet consists of 3750 stacks with IP Services. Currently each site runs full EIGRP and is a EIGRP neightbor to all the other sites. Everything is working fine right now.
We would like to upgrade the R5 site to a 3750x stack with IP Base (cheaper than IP Services) and configure it as EIGRP Stub. My concern is with the following statement in the IOS command reference guide.
Note Multi-access interfaces, such as ATM, Ethernet, Frame Relay, ISDN PRI, and X.25, are supported by the EIGRP Stub Routing feature only when all routers on that interface, except the hub, are configured as stub routers.
I have A 3560x running 12.2(58)SE2 and jus tupgraded to IP services to allow Enhanced EIGRP as found on feature navigator. I need to run full EIGRP and disable Stub.
however, when I try to disable it, I get this error:
dist2-3560x(config-router)#do sho licenseIndex 1 Feature: ipservices Period left: Life time License Type: Permanent License State: Active, In Use License Priority: Medium License Count: Non-Counted Index 2 Feature: ipbase Period left: 0 minute 0 second Index 3 Feature: lanbase Period left: Life time License Type: Permanent License State: Active, Not in Use License Priority: Medium License Count: Non-Counted dist2-3560x(config-router)#no eigrp stub connected summaryEIGRP is restricted to stub configurations only on this platform.
I have installed the license and rebooted. by all indications th elicense is installed and should allow for Full EIGRP routing.
If a router receives EIGRP (AD90) routes, and is configured to redistribute thoes routes into BGP(AD20), why does the RIB show only the incoming EIGRP routes and not the redistributed bgp routes? Are redistributed routes considered for RIB entry in the router that is doing the redistribution
I am facing two issues in BGP both the topology and Config files.Because the link between Vail and Telluride runs iBGP, both routers will learn about the networks in AS 300 and AS 400 through native BGP only and both AS's do reach each other. Both routers are also running OSPF with Aspen and BGP routes are redistributed into OSPF domain. Now, Aspen knows about the networks in AS 300 and AS 400. Now suppose the link between Vail and Telluride fails, both AS 300 and AS 400 can't reach each other anymore. The only solution to this is to redistribute OSPF routes to BGP on Vail and Telluride. But when i did this, only routes with "O" learned by Tahoe and Alta. In other words, Tahoe sees only 192.168.1.220, 192.168.1.196 and Alta sees only the same routes. Why the redistribution from OSPF to BGP didn't advertise the O E2 routes?
This actually was discussed before but i still can't get it. It is not an actual issue.It is about "Syncronization". I know that we've said many times to turn on Sync. when we do redistribution from BGP to an IGP to make sure that the routes are installed correctly in the IGP routing table. However, as you notice in the configuration, i didn't enable Sync. on Vail and Telluride for a long time and redistribution still works fine.
I have a pair of N5K's, down stream from them are from Fabric Interconnects and a UCS chassis. Upstream is a stack of 3750's then ASA5510's.
I am trying to backup the config to our TFTP server and I am getting 'no route to host'.. I tried to add a route, and found that N5K uses VRF's for routing?? .. After some looking I see there are two base VRF's 'management' and 'default'.. the management VRF has a default gateway entry and a single interface member (mgmt0).. when I look at the default VRF .. there are no interface members or routing entries.. Ok, I can handle that just add some interfaces and add a default gateway. Then I get lost:
I'm able to access the UCS manager..... so how the heck is that even possible if there's no gateway defined anywhere (or maybe I'm missing something?). My theory was: add all other ports but mgmt0 to the default VRF, and have the default gateway point out of the uplinks (a vPC).. but wasn't sure how that would affect anything and mainly just wanted to know how I was able to access the UCS manager in light of the fact that there is no default gateway anywhere that I could see...
Is there a way in EIGRP to prefer external routes versus internal routes. EIGRP always picks up internal routes as long as they are available, no matter if external routes have better metric. Our Scenario is that we have DMVPN hub and spoke topology running EIGRP 101. The Core routers also on EIGRP 101 prefer EIGRP 101 routes. We have the new MPLS network running BGP and redistributing these BGP routes into EIGRP 101. The core routers prefer EIGRP 101 routes (internal) to redistributed BGP (external) routes.
6500 - version (s72033_rp-ENTSERVICESK9_WAN-M), Version 12.2(18)SXF17a.I have two ISP's. I have created two defaults as follow & secondary route does not work. [code] After disabling the interface to ISP1, backup routes does not work. [code]
I have a 1941 router configured for Policy based routing with two ISPs.Two static default routes configured to point the gateways of respoective ISPs with same metric.But the problem is, packets are going throug the one ISP only while doing traceroute.
ISP1-----> <----------------------> LAN1 | Router | ISP-------> <----------------------> LAN 2
Below is my configuration :
Current configuration : 5958 bytes ! ! Last configuration change at 05:18:56 UTC Mon Jun 25 2012 ! version 15.0 service timestamps debug datetime msec service timestamps log datetime msec no service password-encryption
I have a 3750 at a branch running EIGRP connected to two routers that both have configured:
access-list 1 deny 0.0.0.0 access-list 1 permit any access-list 2 permit 0.0.0.0 access-list 2 deny any
router eigrp 1distribute-list 1 out FastEthernet0/0distribute-list 2 in FastEthernet0/0
Due to this recently applied config the switch become unreachable from the outside and cannot ping anything. Everything connected to it works fine. I was able to remote into it from a switch behind it and noticed that the 3750 has no default route in the routing table. I do see a default route in the eigrp topology table. How to make the switch learn a default route maintaining the existing configuration on the routers.
I'm having big problems with the 'ip default-network' command. [URL] I build the topology shown in the above link and it works well. Then I deleted the static route on router 2513 and removed the 'ip default-network' command. I configured RIP on all routers and issued the 'ip default-network 18.104.22.168' command on the upper right router. After that the default route is installed on the 2513 router.But when I configure EIGRP instead of RIP, the default route on 2513 is not installed:
Gateway of last resort is not set
22.214.171.124/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks C 126.96.36.199/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/1 L 188.8.131.52/32 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/1 184.108.40.206/16 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks
Network 220.127.116.11/24 is flagged as default network. I would expect the router to install a default route now but it does not. Experts are recommending to not use the 'ip default-network' command. But it is included in the Route exam so I try to understand it.
I am looking to implement 25 Cisco 3750 switches with IPBASE image at the edge, across many cabinets. I understand I am limited to EIGRP Stub on the 3750 switches (with IPBase) and cannot acheive funding to upgrade to IPServices. Though I am not fully aware on the limitations, in terms of what I am trying to acheive.
Broadly speaking I want to install 2 x 3750 switches at the edge, with point-to-point links to two 6500 core switches (at the data centre) and then have HSRP interfaces on the 3750's, tracking the up links to the core switches. I am presuming this will be the best solution to ensure reliability.My 6500 switches run EIGRP and have many VLANs and other L3 networks advertised, which will need advertising to the 3750 switches. I would be looking to advertise two or three HSRP networks on the 3750 switches, up to the core switches.At the moment, the entire network is Layer 2 (VLANS + STP).
how to configure EIGRP across the 3750 switches and 6500 switches to allow for the 3750's to see the whole network and also advertise back up it's directly connected (HSRP) networks to the core. At the moment, after configuration, none of the switches see each other as EIGRP neighbours but can ping the L3 addresses on each end.
We have a 6509 series of core switches and 3750 series of L2 switches, There is no default gateway or any static routes to any IP.VLAN 1 is made admin down and another vlan is used for all communication here in this environment
Attached is configuration for reference But still I am able to take telnet or SSH. I want to know how telnet or SSH or tacacs authentication happens without any static or default route.
I believe the answer is yes, but incorperating more layer 3 features of our 3750's, I want to know if they fully support EIGRP or OSPF?
Also for a small business of 4 locations, each with a 10mbps fiber and a 1.5mbps mpls... wouldn't you say EIGRP would be easier? Want to look at making the failover automatic if the 10mbps fiber goes down between a site, then the network fails over to 1.5mbps mpls. When the fiber returns in service then the network automatically preferr the fiber again.
Currently we use static routes and if there is a provider outage we have to manually edit the config to flip flop the routes.
A check out a network segment and want to know why SwA has a static route to SwB if SwA already has a Default GW to Core?
(SwA, SwB - Catalyst3560, Core - Catalyst4948)Note, there are distribute list on SwA - it does not has any OSPF route (exclude O*IA).
Does this mean when SwA send out packet with DA 10.5.64.0/26, Core will use only L2 switching (instead of L3)? Is this more effectively for Core Switch?
Pleace check my reasoning: 1. When use a static route: SwA receive packet from Vlan 20 with DA 10.5.64.0/26 it will strip out Dest. MAC and replace it with MAC of SwB. Core will switch this packet to SwB based on mac add. table (l2 switching)
2. When SwA has only Default gateway and receive packet from Vlan20 with DA 10.5.64.0/26 it replace Dest. MAC with Core MAC. Core receive this packet, lookup route table for 10.5.64.0 entry and forward packet base on this.
I've got two Nexus 7010's running HSRP north bound to a pair of ASA's, and BGP south bound to four 6509's. Is it possible to advertise default route to BGP neighbor (or prefer it via MED), only if the node is HSRP-active?
Essentially the goal is to create symmetry for inbound/outbound traffic. Only way I can think of so far is via an EEM script, so that when it sees HSRP go active via syslog, it would kick off an action to remove ASN prepend, or reduce MED, and the opposite if HSRP goes standby.
I've just been testing QOS on 3560 with version 15.0(1) and it seems the the default qos trust behavior on access ports has changed. By default the trust state of a port is not to trust anything, however rather than rewriting the DSCP value of the incoming packets and settign it to 0 the switch now seems to leave the DSCP value unchanged.
SW04-C3560(config)# do sh mls qos int g0/2 GigabitEthernet0/2 trust state: not trusted trust mode: not trusted trust enabled flag: ena [Code]......
i have a problem in my eigrp configuration that the other branch only see the network that i am advertised in eigrp and can't see the the redistibuted static route inside eigrp .. i dunno why is thatand that's my running.
I have a 3825 running c3825-advipservicesk9-mz.124-24.T8. It is configured as an eigrp stub advertising only its connected and static routes. There are three WAN connections using a metro ethernet service. Two are data, one for voice traffic. The primary data connections run to two WAN edge ASR1002 routers.
The primary data connection (Gi0/1.943) is 20 Megs, the secondary data connection (Gi0/1.944) is only 15 Megs. Before the secondary connection was in place I only had routes to our backbone via Gi0/1.943 and everything was working great. Some time after the secondary data connection was turned up the routes to the backbone through Gi0/1.943 disappeared from the eigrp topology table causing all data traffic to flow through the less desirable secondary Gi0/1.944 interface to our backbone.
There is a good eigrp neighbor relationship between the 3825 and the ASR connected to Gi0/1.943, but if I show ip protocols it does not list the ASR as a data source. I know that the ASR is advertising its routes because I can see the updates coming from it if I debug ip eigrp. For some reason they are just not being added to the topology table by the 3825, not even as a feasible successor.
I have shut/no shut the interface multiple times at both ends during troubleshooting and I also reloaded and upgraded the code on the 3825 from 12.4(24)T to 12.4(24)T8. We also contacted the metro ethernet carrier to see if they had a policy that could potentially be blocking the traffic (no). My colleagues and I are just not seeing any feasible reason why these routes are not being added.
We've put in a 3750 at our corp hq (Detroit). We did this to break up the current flat 172.16.0.0 /16 network into separate VLAN's for various purposes. We plan on doing that at another site (Farmington), which will become a DR site. We are running EIGRP throughout the organization over an OPTEMAN netowrk and also sending routes to a managed MPLS network which uses BGP. BGP redistributes into EIGRP and vice versa. I've attached a pdf of the network. The 3750 core at the corp hq is a temp core, hopefully upgrading to Nexus within a year or two. This problem didn't exist until the 3750 was introduced and became the gateway for the site. The OPTEMAN router was the gateway and was on the same VLAN as the MPLS router.
So, in detroit we have an Detroit-MPLS router, Detroit-3750, and Detroit-OPTEMAN. What I'm seeing is that the routers I'm getting from the MPLS router make it to the 3750. The 3750 advertises those routes to the Detroit-OPTEMAN router. However, the OPTEMAN router doesn't advertise these routes any further..
In Farmington, it is currently set up like Detroit used to be set up. There is a flat network and both routers are on the same VLAN, no L3 core switch. Routes come in from the MPLS, get advertised to the Farmington-OPTEMAN router, distributes the routes out to all OPTEMAN connected routers, including Detroit. However, Detroit is not passing that route to the 3750.
When we made the 3750 stack the core, we didn't change anything else, except for some IP changes. Why these routes aren't fully redistributing?
Detroit-3750 Stack WS-C3750G-24TS-S <-Stack master running c3750-ipservicesk9-mz.122-55.SE7.bin WS-C3750X-12S-E <-Running c3750e-universalk9-mz.122-55.SE7 show sdm prefer The current template is "desktop routing" template. [Code]...
We have 2 separate ISP connections with 2 separate routers, during a recent router outage we found that our PIX firewall was not routing to the second default route that I have in the pix configuration. Doing some searches on CCO, I have seen some documents that say that the PIX only supports one default gateway/route. Is this still true, even in version 8 of the PIX software? Is this still true in the newer ASA's? Or will they support multiple default routes?
I'm thinking I'm going to have to setup HSRP on my 7206 Internet routers so the PIX can use one gateway, but wanted to verify before I take the time to set this up.
I'm running IP Base on my Catalyst 3560. I'm aware of the fact that this license only allows for EIGRP stub routing - this is desired. However, I don't seem to be able to run the "no auto" command to disable auto-summarization. The command works, but doesn't make it into the running config.
3560-1(config-router)#no eigrp stub connected EIGRP is restricted to stub configurations only on this platform. 3560-1(config-router)#no auto
Not a huge deal since a "show ip prot" indicates that auto-summarization is already disabled, so I'm guessing this is why "no auto" will not take. Why auto-summarization is disabled by default in my scenario?
I have a internet router 2921 .my isp is providing 100 mbps internet link with static public ip network .I am using a default static route to the isp wan ip .I am planning to upgrade 100 mbps to 114 mbps .Unfortunately my isp doesnt have gig port in their side .So they are ready to provide two 57 mbps line .Isp agreed they will route my public ip networks in both the links .
As a result i have two 54 mbps link with same network with two wan networks .My question is whether two default static route to both wan ip will carry out the load sharing correctly ?
172.24.66.0 255.255.255.252 -first link my fa0/1 172.24.66.1 172.24.66.4 255.255.255.252 -second link my fa0/2 172.24.66.5 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.24.66.2 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.24.66.6
We have multiple sites that are linked via MPLS (L3) circuits. We have good size circuits for Internet at two main sites (HQ and QC) and smaller sites come to HQ site to go to internet. We are running ospf (Cisco L3 switches) with service provider (ME3400) at these two main sites and service provider then redistributes routes back into MPLS via BGP and then smaller sites ME3400 learn these routes. i am injecting default routes from HQ and QC, but Telco is only redistributing default from HQ. So large pipe Internet at QC is not being used effeciently. Also if MPLS at HQ fails, then we are told, we need to call Telco and they will make change in their network to now start distributing default from QC.it was my understanding that telco can use BGP communities and advertize one default as prefered and second with higher cost, so that failover can occur automatically. And that they can also set up so that west cost sites use HQ and east cost sites can use QC for going to internet, but they say it is not possible.it the least, can I do something like this at my end for failover for internet, in case MPLS at HQ goes down (soon we will be setting up a point to point VPN tunnel between HQ and QC so that MPLS failure at HQ will trigger advertisement of HQ routes over tunnel via QC into MPLS, so other sites can then come to HQ thru QC over this tunnel. At QC Cisco router (to detect loss of default route from HQ and then start advertizing default from QC)
router ospf 1 default-information originate always route-map From_HQ exit ip access-list standard From_HQ
Does 800 series routers support OSPF or EIGRP? Command for EIGRP is available but when you try to run it, you get that "protocol is not available in the image". Is there a specific image that I can get that will support either of these two on a Cisco 851 or 861?
However, the 6509 IOS only provides the option to track an interface. Is this a feature that's available in later IOS versions?
Is there another way to track these routes? The subnets are used for WAN links at a HQ and DR site and we are doing a specific PBR (sending all http/https traffic) using these subnets. If that WAN link goes down, we want to be able to utilize a backup WAN link to support that traffic.
I would like to configure few routings on my Cisco router 871 in order to allow my employees to have access only to specific websites.However, since some websites have dynamic IPs propably the route that I will create will not work.
My question is, can I configure a route or is there any other way to configure this permission based on the hostname/domain? For example, if I want to permit access to this website www.surveymonkey.com (18.104.22.168) instead of configuring:
ip route 22.214.171.124 255.255.255.255 192.168.10.250
is there any way to configure based on the url.. in order to be able to recognise this host correctly??
Im new to cisco routes, Im traing to configure a 1711 routes with a dsl 2wire routes, my problem is that Im able to ping anywhere in the routes, but when Im on my computer I can only ping the interfaces on the router but no the 2wire route that gives me access to the internet.
My computer is getting ip addres 192.168.200.100 when I ping th 192.168.1.76 is fine, but when I try to ping the 192.168.1.254 does not work, Im assuming the cisco has activated a dinamic route from .76 to .254, but it is not working, why?
Here is the router configuration
Router#show runBuilding configuration... Current configuration : 1183 bytes!version 12.3service timestamps debug datetime msecservice timestamps log datetime msecno service password-encryption!hostname Router!boot-start-markerboot-end-marker!!no aaa new-model!resource policy!memory-size iomem 25ip subnet-zero!!no ip dhcp [Code]....
I am having two small issues....First on my 3745 i get the following message:
*Mar 2 12:13:13.615: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Neighbor 192.168.3.1 not on common subnet for FastEthernet0/1
*Mar 2 12:13:25.811: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Neighbor 192.168.2.1 not on common subnet for FastEthernet0/1
Second problem is that I have my internet connection going to the 3640 on FE0/0 and it works just fine....I want to change over and have the 3745 be the internet router, but when I configure it, I get no connection.
3745 - Current configuration : 1624 bytes ! version 12.4 service timestamps debug datetime msec LD version 0x10 GIO ASIC version 0x127 [Code]...