Routing

[Shahideachattil]

After completing the configuration site 1 and site 5 should communicate each other but site 7 should not get any route from site 1 and site 5

[Georg Pauwen]

Hello,

post the full running configurations (sh run) of all six routers.

[paul driver · Accepted solution]

Hello
Create a GRE tunnel on rtr 2 and rtr 5 using the ospf domain as the transit path , enable eigrp over that tunnel and then advertise the eigrp domain routes.

Example

Rtr 2 
int tunnel 25
tunnel source  143.88.83.3
tunnel destination 143.88.83.75
ip address 10.1.25.2 255.255.255.248 

router eigrp 17
no auro
network 10.1.25.2 0.0.0.0
network131.42.42.17 0.0.0.0

Rtr 5 
int tunnel 52
tunnel source  143.88.83.75
tunnel destination 143.88.83.3
ip address 10.1.25.5 255.255.255.248 

router eigrp 17
no auto
network 10.1.25.5 0.0.0.0
network 131.42.42.3 0.0.0.0

[Richard Labasbas]

Show run >

show ip interface brief>

interface range then no shut all ports

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Firstly, site 7 already has, by default, site 1 routes on R2 and site 5 routes on R5.  Also by default, R3, R4 and R5 would not have site 1 routes as R2, R3 and R4 would not have site 5 routes.  This default routing topology, may, or may not, meet the requirement that site 7 does not have any site 1 or site 5 routes.

If the default route sharing is acceptable, as @paul driver describes, a tunnel between R2 and R5 could be used to share sites 1 and 5 routes between those sites.

If the default route sharing is not acceptable, you could still use a tunnel as Paul suggests, but you would want to use VRFs on routers 2 and 5 so that each site 7 does not (logically) have any sites 1 and 5 routes.

If this distinction is unclear, with the default route sharing, if somehow, for example, a site 7 packets is delivered to R2 from site 1, it will be routed.  With VRFs, R2 would not forward the packet.