feasible successor issues

[ktwaddell]

Hi

This is related to the post I made earlier but was about trying to get a route-map to work, if you see the output below

spct-hbroughton-sw1#sh ip eig top 172.16.190.0 255.255.254.0

EIGRP-IPv4 Topology Entry for AS(90)/ID(10.202.146.66) for 172.16.190.0/23

  State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 281856

  Descriptor Blocks:

  10.202.128.1 (Vlan5), from 10.202.128.1, Send flag is 0x0

      Composite metric is (281856/281600), route is External

      Vector metric:

        Minimum bandwidth is 10000 Kbit

        Total delay is 1010 microseconds

        Reliability is 255/255

        Load is 1/255

        Minimum MTU is 1500

        Hop count is 1

        Originating router is 10.202.138.130

      External data:

        AS number of route is 1

        External protocol is OSPF, external metric is 20

        Administrator tag is 0 (0x00000000)

  10.202.128.14 (Vlan5), from 10.202.128.14, Send flag is 0x0

      Composite metric is (294672/294416), route is External

      Vector metric:

        Minimum bandwidth is 10000 Kbit

        Total delay is 1510 microseconds

        Reliability is 255/255

        Load is 1/255

        Minimum MTU is 1500

        Hop count is 3

        Originating router is 10.202.138.130

      External data:

        AS number of route is 1

        External protocol is OSPF, external metric is 20

        Administrator tag is 0 (0x00000000)

  10.202.128.9 (Vlan5), from 10.202.128.9, Send flag is 0x0

      Composite metric is (284672/284416), route is External

      Vector metric:

        Minimum bandwidth is 10000 Kbit

        Total delay is 1120 microseconds

        Reliability is 255/255

        Load is 1/255

        Minimum MTU is 1500

        Hop count is 3

        Originating router is 10.202.138.130

      External data:

        AS number of route is 1

        External protocol is OSPF, external metric is 20

        Administrator tag is 0 (0x00000000)

You can see the best route is too 10.202.128.1 is correct, however routes from 10.202.128.9 & .14 are in fact invaild, there is only 1 way to this subnet and that is with .1. I have a bit of a advertising loop going on because .9 &.14 are backup switches and getting the routes from the main switches then advertising them back into the cloud where the main switch (above output) is seeing more than 1 route.

Not sure I made that make sense, any help please?

Thanks

Kev

[Peter Paluch · Accepted solution]

Hello Kevin,

You can see the best route is too 10.202.128.1 is correct, however  routes from 10.202.128.9 & .14 are in fact invaild, there is only 1  way to this subnet and that is with .1.

That is true. The two other variants are not feasible successor routes, as their reported distances are not strictly lower than the current feasible distance.

Not sure I made that make sense, any help please?

I am sorry but you did not present any question or requirement here. Can you explain what is your goal?

Best regards,

Peter

[ktwaddell]

"That is true. The two other variants are not feasible successor routes, as their reported distances are not strictly lower than the current feasible distance"

This is what has been throwing me, I thought any outputs from the command show ip eigrp top (network) (subnet) shown main and FS routes?

[cadet alain · Accepted solution]

Hi,

this is true for show ip eigrp topology output but here you asked for the output for a specific prefix.

Regards.

Alain

Don't forget to rate helpful posts.

[ktwaddell]

and there lies my confustion

thanks guys

Kev