EIGRP redistribute static

[sebastien3]

Hello,

I have two routers directly connected. I want to use eigrp to redistribute the static routes present on R2 to R1.

On R2 (192.168.1.2/30) I have a default route that points to R1 (192.168.1.1/30) :
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192168.1.1

On R1 I also receive 0.0.0.0, this can be a problem...

P 0.0.0.0/0, 0 successors, FD is Infinity
via 192.168.1.1 (3072/2816), GigabitEthernet0/1/4

How to remove 0.0.0.0 and let the rest of the static routes pass ?

Thnaks !

[MHM Cisco World]

...

[David Ruess]

If the link on the switch is down then R1 cant reach the core either, so it wont become a transit. All routers are on the same broadcast domain according to the OP drawing. I dont think there is DMVPN configured either.

Also if R1 is configured as a stub the network attached behind R2 wont be advertised. As I mentioned you need summary-addresses and leak maps configured to get it working.

[MHM Cisco World]

...

[David Ruess]

In a hub and spoke topology yes...but thats not what the topology is. Its a full mesh. If teh switch link to Core 2 is down then no routers will be used as a transit. If its up since Core 1 is also attached to the same switch then no router will become a transit.

I missed your previous post but I would still suggest making R2 the stub. Its ONE command vs configuring R1 as a stub with leak map and summarization. Its just overcomplicating it. In my opinion.

[MHM Cisco World]

...

[David Ruess]

I would disagree that there is no meaning of configuring R2 as a STUB since the definition of a STUB is usually the last router in the topology.

AS mentioned there are many ways to accomplish the same thing.

You can configure R1 as a STUB with leak maps and summary addresses...or you can configure R2 as a STUB and that's it. It jsut depends on the requirement.

[David Ruess]

I ran a lab and R1 does NOT become a transit router if the Core link fails and needs to go through the switch.

As you can see from the output it just goes straight to CORE-2.

[MHM Cisco World]

and it harmful to config stub ?

[David Ruess]

Not harmful at all. Just not necessary for the design thats been presented. Its definitely useful for lots of scenarios. Again there are lots of ways to do it and thats just my opinion. I was just saying it wont be used as a transit weather its configured as a stub or not.

[sebastien3]

I don't use DMVPN on routers.

[MHM Cisco World]

...

[sebastien3]

What post exactly ? There are many answers...
By re-reading, you don't seem to be in agreement with using R2 in STUB. I am wrong ?

[sebastien3]

Hi,

Taking the network diagram from post 07-01-2023 01:42 AM : Should a different EIGRP domain be configured between R1 and R2 than that present between the RA/RB/R1/Core1/Core2 routers ?

Run multiple EIGRP processes on R1 ?