We do not have any detail to help us understand your environment and so is a bit difficult to say with certainty how effective the prefix lists and route map are. But on the surface they might be reasonable. Am I correct in assuming that this is implemented at a remote site which connects to some main site? Here are some things that I notice and assumptions that I am making:
- the site is running dynamic routing protocol EIGRP and declares that this site is a stub and not a regular site from which I guess that this is a remote site connecting to some main site.
- under router EIGRP they want to redistribute static routes and want to control exactly which static routes are redistributed.
- the first part of the route map specifies 9 specific static routes which are to be redistributed. Do those 9 static routes which are specified exist in the configuration? Are there other static routes in the configuration which are not specified in the prefix list?
- the second part of the route map specifies to redistribute a static default route? Is there a static default route in the configuration?
- a thing that does puzzle me (and perhaps suggests something in the configuration that may not be so reasonable) is that in a typical main site/remote site relationship the default route is frequently advertised from the main site to the remote site. In this case it appears that the remote site is advertising a default route to the main site.
- I am assuming that there are other EIGRP statements that you have not included, especially some network statements under router eigrp or some router eigrp statements under some interfaces to instruct EIGRP to run on some interfaces. Is that correct?
HTH
Rick
