So Called Unnecessary Routes in the Access Layer Switch

[mrashby]

All,

I have my network up and passing traffic between the access, distribution, and core switches okay. We built the network based off of one of Cisco's High Availability network design documents. I was reading further in the document and it says that it is unnecessary to have all of the external routes, and it is a lot of external routes, on the access layer switches. The document claims that it doesn't serve a purpose.

Now my first question is why do they not serve a purpose? If the admin distance of the external EIGRP routes are higher wouldn't the traffic just be routed via the internal EIGRP routes down to the distribution switches since those are the next hop, or is my thinking not right?

My second question is how do you stop the access layer switches from receiving all of those unnecessary routes?

[mrashby]

Rick,

I will admit you were right. I used the distribute-list and everything is okay. I had to try it both ways to see what results I got, but thanks though.

[Richard Burts]

Mario

Thanks for posting back to this thread and indicating that you have found a solution where everything is ok. It makes the forum more useful when people can read about an issue and can read a solution (or perhaps more than one) which does resolve the issue.

I assert that trying it both ways is a good thing. I am glad that you agree with my suggestion. I am especially glad that you agree after you have tried it for yourself and see how the alternatives work.

There are some situations in which the summary-address may be the best solution and some situations in which the distribute list is the best solution. The more that you have worked with each alternative the more you will understand about how to choose the better alternative for each situation.

HTH

Rick