EIGRP Summarization w/ LEAK-MAP using Tags?

[Tymofii Dmytrenko]

Is anyone aware what are LEAK maps restrictions in EIGRP? I was looking for some detailed information about it and was not able to find anything

I'd like to leak some routes which I've tagged on a different router during redistribution, but as it seems LEAK maps are limited to only work with access lists and prefix lists? I am trying to do the following

router eigrp EIGRP-200
 address-family ipv4 unicast autonomous-system 200
  af-interface Tu10
   summary-address 10.0.0.0/8 leak-map LEAK-DC-SUBNETS
  exit-af-interface
  topology base
  network 172.17.10.0 0.0.0.255
  network 10.180.180.0 0.0.0.7
!
route-map LEAK-DC-SUBNETS permit 10
 match tag 140

However, remote neighbor only receives 10.0.0.0/8 :(

If I use prefix-list and define specific prefixes it works ok. I hate using ACLs and Prefixes as they are kind of static in nature. I prefer to use TAGs for filtering, so I thought I can use tags here as well... Apparently not, but I am not sure what are other restrictions.

[Julio E. Moisa]

Hi

Eigrp leak-map is just used to advertise components (prefixes) of the summarized network along with the summarized network. 

I recommend to use prefixes, it is an organized method to match prefixes, I dont like to use ACL with EIGRP because any change will resync the EIGRP neighborship. Have you tried match the interfaces into the route-map?

route-map LEAK permit 5
match interface loopback 0
match interface loopback 1
match interface loopback 2

Basically the route-map is used to match that you want to advertise along with the summarized network to the peer. 

Often the TAGs are used with static route or when you want to mark some prefix or host like the case of redistribution into other routing protocol. But in Eigrp leaking it will not work.

Hope it is useful

:-)

[Tymofii Dmytrenko]

Thanks Julio

I do understand leak-maps purpose for EIGRP summarization. I was wondering if it is limited to work with ip prefixes and ACLs within route-maps. Apparently so...

It's pity because I do redistribute tens of routes in one location and I tag them during redistribution. I don't like the idea of creating and maintaining ip prefix list with 10 subnets to enable leaking during summarization. It's manual process and I hate it. If in future, someone adds another subnet into DMZ and they add static - this prefix will have to be changed.

If you know what I mean :)

If leak maps were supported tags, then I would simply tell 10.0.0.0/8 leak-map LEAKS and my LEAKS route-map will refer to my tag. Mission complete. :)

Argh... need to scratch my head

[paul driver]

Hello

If leak maps were supported tags, then I would simply tell 10.0.0.0/8 leak-map LEAKS and my LEAKS route-map will refer to my tag

Not sure how this would be accomplished unless as you have mentioned the more specific route within the summary are marked via some other method but as present all i am aware how to advertised the more specific routes would be matching on ACL/PF or the actual interface.

res
Paul

[paul driver]

Hello

As you are aware leak map allows to advertise additional routes of the summary into eigrp.which would otherwise be suppressed, Imade note of the 3 rules from my previous studies that I think are most relevant and these are:

1) If the leak-map refers to a route-map that does not exist, Only the summary roue will be advertised and the more specific routes suppressed

2)  If the leak-map refers to a route-map and that route-map is referring to an access-list/prefix-list that doesnt exist, Then the summary route  all the more specific routes will be advertised.

3) If the leak-map refers to a route-map and that route-map is referring to an access-list/prefix-list that does  exist, Then the summary route  all the more specific routes matched by the acl/rprefix-list will be advertised.


res
Paul

.

[Tymofii Dmytrenko]

Thanks Paul.

Surprisingly I am facing the same issue again and when I searched in Google I've got back to my own thread here :D Ha!

I am still looking for this feature though. It's pity it wasn't implemented by Cisco. It sounds like a simple thing to do for them, but hey... still not there

Leak map are based on route-maps logic, so I don't understand what's the point to only support ACL and prefix-list based matching in leak maps. Why not to allow the full power of route maps?

I would then create a summary, apply a leak (route) map that matches on tags and leak those tagged routes out. Eh... dreams :)