I'm attempting to redistribute a static route into EIGRP on a 3750 switch and pass it to an upstream router, sadly however this isn't working, or at least the route isn't being recieved on the upstream router. [code]
View 10 Repliesthis is a Nexus 5596 L3 with the latest code:
It looks like the deny statement is not working as I can see all routes I am redistributing. I even did a deny on a specific route and I still see it in the routing table on another router in the autonomous system.The same below works fine on IOS platform. [code]
I have an issue with my setup of a 6500 switch (12.2(33)SXI9).We have a 6500 switch with several VRF's. For a certain VRF I would like to redistribute a static route in EIGRP. After doing so I don't see the static route on my eigrp neighbor.
This is a overview of my config. I'm basically redistributing only my static route for this vrf in eigrp.
I found a similar case in which the solution was adding a metric to the static route. (eg. redistribute static route-map static-eigrp-pp metric 10000 100 255 1 1500). But the strange thing is that we don't have this issue on a similar machine (same IOS, same config setup). [code]
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.
On 3750 switch with IOS c3750-ipbasek9-mz.122-55.SE4.bin "eigrp stub static redistributed" command will be executable ?
View 1 Replies View RelatedWe have a 14 offfice MPLS network. All offices have Cisco 3750s running OSPF which replicate route tables via our providers BGP peers. I am introducing a new network in our SF office which is not directly connected so in SF we have a static route "ip route 172.16.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.100.1. I want our other offices to learn this route route via OSPF so that they know how to get to the new network. My problem is that of course remote sites do not see our static routes and i have tried to add this via ospf but the switch will not propagate this route because it is not directly connected to the switch in SF.
router ospf 1
log-adjacency-changes
network 10.2.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 2.2.2.2
[Code]......
i wonder if i can make a backup static route for an existing link over wan using the below diagram
the Core Switch type is 3750 in both sides i`m using only static routing for all destination like
Core1:
ip route 192.168.8.0 255.255.255.0 172.10.10.30
Core2:
ip route 172.17.200.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.100.105
requirements is to track the reachibility for the core ip address from both sides & change the routing automatically to the backup tunnel line
I config the routers with EIGRP and also write Static route between two PC before remove the link between router0 and router1 , destination is reachable , but when remove this connection , packet from pc1 to pc0 will drop in a loop and never reach to destination , is it possible to have a Link state routing protocol and static route at the same network like this scenario , how to prevent loop in this topology static route is configure as bellow :
router0 <==> router 1 <==> router2 <==> router3 <==> router <==>pc1
I have a new MPLS circuit being stood up for my site; it’s going to replace a site to site VPN connection to our "Headquarters." I want to test this without affecting my production networks. Without getting into alot of details, the admin at the remote site is not very cooperative and basically doesn't want to set this up and I don't have access to his switching/routing. He is prepared to do minimal tasks if necessary. Ultimately, I am looking to test the new Vlan, once successful, route the traffic away from the Site to Site VPN connection to the MPLS circuit. Here is what I plan on doing, I need to determine if it is going to work.
LAN in my office uses EIGRP for routing. MPLS (10.1.1.253) uses OSPF (area 0) and BGP. Currently, traffic destined to headquarters (10.10.1.1/24) uses the default route on a CAT3750 pointing to the firewall (ASA5520) (10.1.1.254).Create new VLAN/DHCP scope to use as a test Vlan to test the new MPLS circuit. 10.1.199.0/24Create static routes on 3750 destined for headquarters for L2L VPN traffic pointing to firewall so traffic to headquarters remains on the L2L connection. ip route 10.10.1.1 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.254 (once I share routes with OSPF, routes to Headquarters will be advertised over the MPLS)Create OSPF instance on the 3750 advertising only the new subnet so that the MPLS network knows to route this traffic over the MPLS for return traffic from headquarters. (this is where it is grey as I don’t know OSPF at all) The switch has a L3 interface which the MPLS router uses as its gateway, so there is direct communication.router-ospf 0 network 10.1.199.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 4. On 3750 create a PBR for the new subnet so that it is routed over the MPLS, (imagine test PC is 10.1.199.100), the remaining production subnets will use the static routes and ignore the OSPF routes because of the shorter administrative distance.Will the PBR route win over the static route for that one subnet? Is that all I need in the OSPF configuration? I see some configs that have neighbor statements with costs, authentication types etc..
Is it possible to track a IPSLA operation and if it goes down track a static route which will be removed from EIGRP process. I have read through documentation and have come stuck. I have the below configured and have shown the features installed. How would I go about getting the below static route injected into EIGRP only if the IPSLA operation in ok?
track RMB
type rtr 100 reachability
ipsla
[Code]....
I'm trying to create a route-map for an EIGRP Distribute list on a N7K, the goal is to not advertise a 10.0.0.0/8 and 172.31.30.20/32 networks out a link to a remote site while permitting all other traffic to the internet (default). I configured the ACL/route-maps below and applied them outbound on the N7K interface but no subnets at all are being received on the remote site router.
ip access-list DENY_10.0.0.0
10 permit ip any 10.244.244.20/30 <<--WAN interface network
20 deny ip any 10.0.0.0/8
25 deny ip any 172.31.30.20/32
30 permit ip any any
[code]....
We are deploying a new office in the building next to our main office. The main office has a Cisco ASA 5510 behind that is a Cisco 3750 stack. In the new office we are deploying a new Cisco 3750, they will be connected via fiber cable. I have sliced off VLAN 800 as a transit link /30 with an address space of 10.249.249.1-4. The new 3750 only has two VLAN's 800 and 112 (10.112.0.0/24). VLAN 112 routes are advertised to the neighboring 3750 properly as seen in the routing tables of the 3750 stack:
D 10.112.0.0/24 [90/3072] via 10.249.249.2, 00:22:24, Vlan800
Traffic passes between all local VLANS with no issue. I found in order to get packets to pass between the ASA and the new 3750 I had to add a static route to the ASA:
S 10.112.0.0 255.255.255.0 [1/0] via 10.100.0.1, inside
My question is why is EIGRP not advertising the 10.112.0.0 network to the ASA. Here are EIGRP configs on the switches
Existing 3750 Stack
router eigrp 100
network 10.0.0.0
redistribute static
[code]....
I have a hub and spoke WAN that conisits of one core location with with a 6500 and nine other buildings using 4006 Catalyst that conenct back to the core via dual gig fiber. We are using EIGRP at each location as well as the core. I was tesing something at one of our buildings decided to hang a 3750 off the 4006 and enable the same eigrp process on the 3750 that is enabled on the 4006 and 6500 (EIGRP 1).
1. All the routes that the 6500 knows about are advertised out to each of the nine locations.
2. The 4006's are all advertising thier directly conencted routes to the 6500.
Onto the location I was testing at:
The 4006 where I was testing at has four vlan interfaces enabled and they are in an UP/UP state. The ip routes from the 4006's directly conencted vlan interfaces propogate to the 6500 at our core location and the 6500 sucsefully propgates these learned routes to all the other 4006's.
This past Friday I configured a 3750x with two /22 vlan interfces and one physical gi port with an IP address and also configured on Ethernet port on the 4006 with an IP address in the same network block as the 3750x gi interface (a /30 netowrk block). I saw both interfaces come up and EIGRP sucesfully established a neighbor adjecency between the 3750x and the 4006.
I noticed that the 3750 advertised out all of it's directly conencted routes to the 4006 and the 4006 advertised it's directly conencted routes to the 3750. However, the 4006 did not advertise any of the routes it had learned from the 3750x to the 6500 and nor did the 4006 advertise any of the routes it had learned from the 6500 to the 4006. My suspicion is that the "eigrp stub connected summary" statement is enabled on both the 4006 and 3750 thus prevenintg them form advertising out any routes other than thier directly conencted routes. Can any of you verify that I'm either correct or inccorect about this?
here are the eigrp statemnets from the 6500 and 4006:
6500:
router eigrp 1
redistribute static
network 10.0.0.0
network 172.16.0.0
network 172.17.0.0(code)
I am working at a client site today on a routing issue. I am currently working on an issue where a 3750 switch running EIGRP will not update its neighbor router when a network statement is added to the eigrp instance.The neighbor is a 3825 router.
Both the switch and the router have a common network which is 192.168.36.0/24.
Both the switch and the router are in a neighbor adjacency.
Both boxes have "no auto-summ" in the routing configuration instance.
I can run debugs on both routers (debug eigrp packets) and then I can watch queries and updates when I issue "auto-summ" or "no auto-summ". Also I see a "graceful restart" for the peers when this is done.I had an expectation that when I added the network (this is just an arbitrary network for testing, which is 172.16.69.0/24). I wanted to watch this network being sent in an update to the neighbor router.When I add the above mentioned network, there are no updates packets sent from the 3750 to the 3845. I have not had success to this point trying to resolve. I have followed the Cisco document "Troubleshooting EIGRP Flow Chart", but have exhausted all it has to offer and now it is at the point where it is telling me to contact TAC.
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.
We have two sites: 192.168.100.x and 192.168.101.x currently connected via IPsec VPN. On each end we have a Cisco ASA 5505. However, each site also has an MPLS VPN with intentions to move all traffic to this link. Will this work on the ASA? We need to make sure traffic can hit the ASA @ site A on the inside interface and trafiic will forward to the MPLS VPN router which then handles the traffic. Too, will it cause any problems in bi-directional flow between the two sites?
View 3 Replies View Relatedthis is router 887, its vlan is 192.168.3.1/24. If I'd like to add a static route via different host within same vlan, rather than the router, like:
ip route 192.168.100.0/24 192.168.3.6
How can we achieve it? I tried adding it directly and failed:
(config)#ip route 192.168.100.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.3.6
%Invalid next hop address (it's this router)
I am trying to implement static route tracking on a Catalyst 3560G ( WS-C3560G-48PS, IOS version 12.2(35)SE5 and SW image C3560-IPBASE-M). The configuration is as follows:
track 101 rtr 1 reachability
!
rtr 1
type echo protocol ipIcmpEcho 10.199.101.2
rtr schedule 1 life forever start-time now
!
IP address 10.199.101.2 is reachable via ICMP (its the next-hop router).
The static routes configured are the following:
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.199.101.2 track 101
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.200.52.1 20
But only the secondary route(ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.200.52.1 20) its being installed on the routing table by the switch.
I have run into a problem testing static route failovers using ECMP. I have an edge device (SUT) that has 2 NIC interfaces to an internal Loopback. Each NIC is a unique Gi port on an 7609 VLAN tagged with unique IP subnets. The 7600 is configured to route the loopback via the 2 NIC. I am using CEF in the network for other traffic performance testing. Using an external sniffer we can verify that when a ping is initiated externall to the SUT loopback a specific path is selected by the router.
Ping host ------Network-----7609 Gi1/21 (172.16.110.9)-----------SUT Nic1 (172.16.110.10)
| |
| -------Loopback 137.168.68.114/32
| |
7609 Gi2/21 (172.16.110.73)------------SUT Nic2 (172.16.110.74)
[code]....
Now, when the selected path is taken out of server (pulling cable for example), the 7609 is not clearing the routing table to indicate that particular path is down and failing over to the secondary path. Other things I have noticed is the show ip cef still shows both peers as well as the arp table but the interface shows down (show interface gi1/21 for example). I am running 15.1. My understanding is that since the ports are directly connected to the router, the ports should be detected as down and any association of the IP for the down port should removed. This should trigger the static route to update the static route for the end destination to use the second path and traffic should continue.
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.2(17r)S2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)BOOTLDR: Cisco IOS Software, c7600s72033_rp Software (c7600s72033_rp-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 15.1(1)S1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
I am working on Nexus 7010 with NX-OS 5.1.5. I have to delete the static route 10.10.0.0/16 via 10.16.0.21. [code] I try to remove the route with the command "no ip route 10.10.0.0/16 10.16.0.21" and I have the message below % Route not deleted, it does not exist..I don't understand why I have this message because the static route exist.
View 9 Replies View RelatedOn 1811W Router i have OSPF running and i do not need this static route.ip route 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.20.3,when i try to delete i get error ,1811w#,config t,Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.,1811w(config)#no ip route 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.20.3,%No matching route to delete,1811w(config)#.
View 7 Replies View RelatedA 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.
We're running a simple policy map on a 3750 stack (IOS version 12.2(53)SE2), but the route-map counters do not show any matches:
NYKIRDRCX01#sh route-map
route-map remote-route, permit, sequence 51
Match clauses:
ip address (access-lists): remoteACL
Set clauses:
ip next-hop 192.168.101.5
Policy routing matches: 0 packets, 0 bytes
However, I've confirmed via our netflow monitor that the traffic we're trying to send to the appropriate next hop is, indeed, getting there correctly.
I've seen issues in the past with a 3750 not reporting counters correctly.
I try to enter the command "ip policy route-map" on 3750's interface. But the command doesn't appear. Why? Whereas I see several times that this command is possible on this switch. What I have to do to enter this command?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have a 3750 stack with several vlans and svi's. We have had no need to route between them until now. Here is what I have done...
Created the vlans.. vlan 1 and vlan 25
Given each vlan an ip address vlan 1 10.0.0.2 and vlan 25 is 192.168.5.250
no shut on everything
ip routing
sdm routing preferred
default route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 (isp)
If I'm on the switch I can ping anything on vlan 1 and anything on vlan 25 (the device I'm pinging on vlan25 is the svi and a dsl router 192.168.5.1) From a computer on vlan 1 I can ping the gateway/svi for vlan 1 and the svi for vlan 25 but no devices including the dsl router which pinged fine. If I put the computer on an access port for vlan 25 I can ping everything just fine on vlan 25 but not vlan 1 (gateway set correctly)
As a test I put in a static route ip route 195.113.20.11 255.255.255.255 192.168.5.1
I did a traceroute from the switch and it comes through great. I did a traceroute from the computer and it hits my gateway of 10.0.0.2 vlan 1 and stops.
I have Catalyst 3750. and 2 ISPs
I wanted to use, let say on port5 of Catalyst 3750 only 2nd the ISP will route to this port.
The rest is pointed to the 1st ISP.
Im thinking of using VLAN..
I have a 3750 switch and I am trying to configure PBR (route-maps) in it.But when I try to apply the policy to a vlan interface the policy does not show in the interface.So I can not use PBR to choose my default gateway!Question: Does PBR work in a 3750 switch? Can PBR be configured in a vlan interface? There is any problem with the IOS that I do not know?
View 5 Replies View RelatedIP SLA configuration fails over but cannot ping the 4.2.2.2 via Site B. Here is the output on Cisco 3750...
SW2#show runBuilding configuration...
Current configuration : 2901 bytes!version 12.2no service padservice timestamps debug datetime msecservice timestamps log datetime msecno service password-encryption!hostname SW2!boot-start-markerboot-end-marker!!!!no aaa
[Code].....
I have a Cisco 3750 stack with 5 members.
Switch Ports Model SW Version SW Image
------ ----- ----- ---------- ----------
1 24 WS-C3750G-24T 12.2(55)SE6 C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M
2 24 WS-C3750G-24T 12.2(55)SE6 C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M
* 3 24 WS-C3750G-24T 12.2(55)SE6 C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M
4 52 WS-C3750G-48TS 12.2(55)SE6 C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M
5 52 WS-C3750G-48TS 12.2(55)SE6 C3750-IPSERVICESK9-M
I have recently set the sdm prefer template to routing to allow route-maps and rebooted the stack:
3750GCORE#show sdm preferThe current template is "desktop routing" template.The selected template optimizes the resources inthe switch to support this level of features for8 routed interfaces and 1024 VLANs.
number of unicast mac addresses: 3K number of IPv4 IGMP groups + multicast routes: 1K number of IPv4 unicast routes: 11K number of directly-connected IPv4 hosts: 3K number of indirect IPv4 routes: 8K number of IPv4 policy based routing aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC qos aces: 0.5K number of IPv4/MAC security aces: 1K
I still cannot apply a route map to a vlan interface however:
I have preconfigured the route map as per below to take traffic from one particular client and pass it to the inside interface of our ASA firewall:(yes i know 192.9.0.0 is a public network, its an inherited problem that is in process of being remedied!)
ip access-list extended TEST
permit ip host 192.9.216.234 any
permit icmp host 192.9.216.234 any
permit tcp host 192.9.216.234 any
route-map TEST_MAP permit 9
match ip address TEST
set ip default next-hop 192.9.201.10
When i do the following I get this error from debug:
3750GCORE#config t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
3750GCORE(config)#int vlan 216
3750GCORE(config-if)#ip policy route-map TEST_MAP
3750GCORE(config-if)#
007804: Feb 8 03:16:55: %PLATFORM_PBR-3-UNSUPPORTED_RMAP: Route-map TEST_MAP not supported for Policy-Based Routing
when I show the running config, the route-map is not there.3750GCORE#show running-config int vlan 216Building configuration...Current configuration : 205 bytes!interface Vlan216
no ip redirectsip directed-broadcast 101end
why TEST_MAP is not supported?
Cannot set route map on interface vlan. which in non default vrf on Cisco 3750.IOS c3750-ipservicesk9-mz.122-55.SE.bin sdm prefer route in enable ip vrf users rd 200:0 route-target export 200:0 route-target import 200:0 interface Vlan201 description Users 1 ip vrf forwarding users ip address 10.31.76.1 255.255.252.0 ip helper-address 10.31.4.57 route-map fromuser permit 10 match ip address fromuser set ip next-hop 10.31.128.155 When I enter "ip policy route-map fromuser" to interface Vlan 201 I heve the message:
% Remove VRF configuration from interface Vlan201 first
I have a client with a 3750x stack. We've upgraded it to IP Services. We have a simple PBR setup. One access-list to forward traffic from a specific LAN ip to another gateway on the network.
I go to vlan1 (default vlan) to apply the PBR and the command takes with no errors, but do a "show run" and it doesn't show up under the interface.
I go to vlan1 and apply a PBR that doesn't exist and the command takes with no errors, and is listed under the interface in the config
I can apply the PBR globally and appears to work, but we can't have it there based on other issues it creates.
config: (all tracks are up)
C3750_stack#show sdm prefer
The current template is "desktop routing" template.
[Code]....
Actually i have a design from my customer who have ( Cisco core switch 3750 (allports fiber ports) which is connected to L2 switches , these switches carry servers and end users .the only routing protocol on the access switches is static route ,
My question how can i route the traffic from the server to the end user , as the the server is not direct connect to the core switch.
I am trying to configure policy based routing however when i try to apply to an interface vlan. The configuration does not show in the interface.
route-map OTHER_ROUTE permit 10
match ip address OTHER_ROUTE
set ip next-hop x.x.x.x
[Code]....