BRKRST 2330

EIGRP Deployment
BRKRST-2330
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr
EIGRP
EIGRP Operation Topologies and Techniques Managing EIGRP
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
EIGRP Operation
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
EIGRP Operation
Neighbor Formation Computing Metrics The Diffusing Update Algorithm The Active Process External Routing Information
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
EIGRP Neighbor Formation

EIGRP uses a three way handshake to prevent neighbor formation along a unidirectional link When A receives the first multicast hello from B, it places B in the pending state, and transmits a unicast update with the initialization (init) bit set While B is in this state, A will not send it any queries or routing information
A
Unicast Update + Init Multicast hello
B in Pending
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public

When B receives this update with the init bit set, it sends an update with the init bit set as well The acknowledgement for As initial update is piggybacked onto this packetit is never transmitted by itself There is no way for A to receive the acknowledgement for its initial update without also receiving Bs initial update
A
Unicast Update + Init Unicast Update + Init + Ack Multicast hello
B in Pending
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public

Once the acknowledgement for its initial update is received, A takes B out of the pending state, and begins sending it topology information If this acknowledgement isnt ever received, hellos from B are ignored while A attempts to retransmit the initial update Eventually, A will time B out, and the process will start over
A
Unicast Topology Table Info Unicast Update + Init Inicast Update + Init + Ack Multicast hello
B Out of Pending
B in Pending
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public

For each route A sends B, B sends a poison reverse
Poison Reverse Unicast Routes Unicast Topology Table Info
This makes certain the two routers tables are accurate When a router finishes sending its table, it sends an end-of-table indicator
End-of-Table
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
Computing Metrics
EIGRP uses a compound metric Individual metrics are called component metrics
Five components: bandwidth, delay, load, reliability, and MTU By default, only bandwidth and delay are actually used
10 7 + delays * 256 min(bandwidth)
Calculated metric is called the composite metric
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
10
Computing Metrics
Router A advertises 10.1.1.0/24 to B
Bandwidth is set to 1000 Delay is set to 100 10.1.1.0/24 BW: 1000 Delay: 100
A
Router B
Compares current bandwidth to bandwidth of link to A; sets bandwidth to 100 Adds delay along link to A, for a total of 1100
BW: 100 Delay: 1000
BW: 56 Delay: 2000 Minimum

Added Together
Router C
Compares current bandwidth to bandwidth of link to B; sets bandwidth to 56 Adds delay along link to B, for a total of 3100
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
10 7 + delays * 256 min(bandwidth)
Cisco Public
11
Computing Metrics
Router C uses the formula to compute a composite metric
This isnt what the router computes, thoughwhy? The router drops the remainder after the first step!
10 7 + delays * 256 min(bandwidth) 107 + 3100 * 256 = 46507885 56

107 56 = 178571 178571 + 3100 * 256 = 46507776
Why the 256?

EIGRP uses a 32-bit metric space IGRP uses a 24-bit metric space To convert between the two, multiply or divide by 256!
??
12
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
Computing Metrics
Where does EIGRP get the component metrics?
Bandwidth: default bandwidth value or interface level bandwidth command Delay: default interface value or interface level delay command Reliability: per interface computed reliability, 0255 Load: per interface computed load, 0255
Why not set the K values so the reliability and load are picked up?
Interface level computed metrics are only picked up when a change in the bandwidth or delay causes EIGRP to reread them or when a route changes and we have to recalculate the metric Effectively, this means these metrics (reliability and load) are not checked on an ongoing basis with stable routes
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
13
The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

How does EIGRP determine which routes are loop free? Each of As neighbors is reporting reachability to E
B with a cost of 10 C with a cost of 10 D with a cost of 30
A 15 10 15 D
C B 10 10 E 30
These three costs are called reported distance (RD); the distance each neighbor is reporting to a given destination
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
14

At A, the total cost to reach E is:
20 through B 25 through C 45 through D
A 15 10 15 D
The best of these three paths is the path through B, with a cost of 20 This is the feasible distance (FD)
B 10
C 10 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
15

A uses these two pieces of information to determine which paths are loop free The best path (FD) is used as a benchmark; all paths with RDs lower than the FD cannot contain loops The algorithm may mark some loop free paths as loops However, it is guaranteed never to mark a looped path as loop free
B 15 A 15 10 D
C 10 10 E 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
16

At A:
The path through B is the best path (FD), at 20 C can reach E with a cost of 10; 10 (RD) is less than 20 (FD), so this path is loop free D can reach E with a cost of 30; 30 (RD) is not less than 20 (FD), so EIGRP assumes this path is a loop 10 15 A 15 D
C B 10 10 E 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
17

At A:
Question: Why should DUAL consider the 30 (RD) from D as a loop? Answer: Because, mathematically it could be. As far as A is concerned, the 30 (RD) from D could be the loop we see here
A 5 5 10 D
30
10 E
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
18

If the best path fails, through B (the successor), EIGRP will examine the available paths to E Finding a path which was previously declared loop free (a feasible successor), it begins using it immediately C now becomes the successor (best path)
B 10 15 A 15 D
C 10 10 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
19

Are there any Feasible Successors from Router Es perspective?
FD is 20 RD from C is 15 RD from D is 15 RD < FD, so it satisfies the Feasibility Condition (FC) We have two FS!
A 15 10 15 D
C B 10 10 30
In order for there to be only one FS, the link A-D or A-C would need to be increased to at least 20
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
20
10

A now examines its topology information based on the new successor metric The reported distance through the remaining neighbor, D, is 30; 30 (RD) is still more than 25 (FD), so this path is still considered a loop
B 15 A 15 10 D
C 10 10 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
21

The path through C now fails A examines its topology information, and finds it has no loop free path to E However, it does have a neighbor, and that neighbor might have a loop free path So, it places E in active state and queries D
B 10 15 A 15 D
C 10 10 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
22
11

D examines its topology information Since its best path is not through A, the path it has to E is still valid D sends a reply to this query, indicating it still has a valid loop free path to E Once A receives this reply, it begins using the path through D
B 10 A 15 15 D
C 10 10 30
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
23
The Active Process

Prior to Enhanced Active Processing 12.1(4.0.3)T and 12.1(4.1) 10.1.1.0/24
So what used to happen when A loses its route to 10.1.1.0/24?
No FS, mark route active Set a three minute active timer Query all neighbors (B)
A 10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Active Timer Set Query
B receives As query
No FS, mark route active Set three minute active timer Query all neighbors (C)
B
10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Active Timer Set Query
C receives Bs query
Examine local topology table No feasible successors No neighbors to query!
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public
10.1.10/24 Gone
24
12
The Active Process

Prior to Enhanced Active Processing
C has no alternate path to 10.1.1.0/24
Remove from local tables Reply to querying neighbors
A 10.1.1.0/24
10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Remove 10.1.1.0/24 Query
B receives Cs reply
No outstanding queries Remove from local tables Reply to querying neighbors
B
Reply 10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Remove 10.1.1.0/24 Query
A receives Bs reply
No outstanding queries Remove from local tables
C
Reply 10.1.10/24 Gone Remove 10.1.1.0/24
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
25
The Active Process

Prior to Enhanced Active Processing
If C sends the reply, and B never receives it, what happens? As active timer (three minutes) is still counting down while B and C are trying to get the reply back When this timer expires, A declares an SIA
The A/B neighbor relationship is reset Why Reset A/B When B/C Is the Problem??
A 10.1.1.0/24
10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Query Reset Relationship!
10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Query Bad Link, Reply Never Makes It Reply 10.1.10/24 Gone Remove 10.1.1.0/24
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
26
13
The Active Process

Active Process Enhancement 12.1(4.0.3)T and 12.1(4.1), CSCdp33034 So now what happens?
A queries B when the route goes away; then A sets a sia-retransmit timer to half the configured active time (1.5 minutes, normally) After this time has passed, A sends an SIA Query
If B sends an SIA Reply to the SIA query, A resets its timer, and the A/B neighbor relationship stays up A will send the SIA Query 3x, for a total window of 4.5 minutes; even if B replies, after three tries A will reset the neighbor relationship A/B
10.1.1.0/24
10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Query SIA Query
27
The Active Process

Active Process Enhancement
If C sends the reply, and B never receives it, what happens now? If C supports the Active Process Enhancement then when B sends the first SIA Query and receives no reply from C (do to the bad link) B will reset the B/C neighbor relationship If C does not support the Active Process Enhancement then when B sends the SIA Query and C doesnt reply to it then the B/C relationship will be reset
10.1.1.0/24
28
14
The Active Process

C will either reply to the query, which B will then clear back to A, or C will fail to reply at some point and B will reset its relationship with C Either event clears the query from Bs point of view, which is then cleared back to A minimizing SIAs considerably If anything gets reset, its now the right neighbor adjacent to the problem router, helping to troubleshoot and identify problem routers easier
10.1.1.0/24
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
29
The Active Process

Where does the query stop?
Router A loses its connection to 10.1.1.0/24
Router A does not consider B a FS, for some reason Router A sends B a query
C E D F G A
10.1.1.0/24
B
Local Knowledge of an Alternate Path, So Reply
Router B examines its local tables, and finds:

Its current path (successor) doesnt pass through A It has a FS that doesnt pass through A
Router B answers
The query is bounded where there is local knowledge of another loop-free path
30
15
The Active Process

Router C is filtering 10.1.1.0/24 towards D Router A loses its connection to 10.1.1.0/24
Router A sends C a query Filter
A
10.1.1.0/24
B
Router C has no FS for 10.1.1.0/24

Router C sends D a query
C E G F
Router D examines its local tables

No information about 10.1.1.0/24, so send a reply
D No Knowledge of Route, So Reply
Query is bounded because D has no information about 10.1.1.0/24

BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
31
The Active Process

Router E is summarizing towards F Router A loses its connection to 10.1.1.0/24
Router A sends E a query
A
10.1.1.0/24
B
Summary
Router E has no FS for 10.1.1.0/24

Router E sends F a query
C E G F
Router F examines its local tables

No information about 10.1.1.0/24, so send a reply Query is bounded because F has no information about 10.1.1.0/24
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
No Knowledge of Route, So Reply
Cisco Public
32
16
The Active Process

Router G has no neighbors Router A loses its connection to 10.1.1.0/24
Router A sends G a query
A
10.1.1.0/24
B
Router G examines its local tables

No FS No neighbors to query, so send a reply
C E D F G
No Neighbors, So Reply
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
33
The Active Process

The Query is bounded by:
Local knowledge of an alternate loop-free path not learned through the neighbor the query was received from No local knowledge of the route because of filtering or summarization No neighbors to query
C A
10.1.1.0/24
B
Local Knowledge of an Alternate Path, So Reply Summary

E G F
Filter
D
No Neighbors, So Reply

BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
34
17
External Routing Information

What is an External Route in EIGRP? Any route within EIGRP that originated outside of the EIGRP process
Basically, routes redistributed into EIGRP from another protocol, static, or connected routes Marked in the routing table as D EX to indicate EIGRP owns the route but that it was originated external to EIGRP
router# show ip route [snip] D EX 20.1.1.0 [170/2560025856] via 10.1.1.4, 00:07:26, FastEthernet0
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
35

What additional information is carried in an external?
Router# show ip eigrp topo 172.31.1.98 255.255.255.255 IP-EIGRP topology entry for 172.31.1.98/32 State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 28160 Routing Descriptor Blocks: 0.0.0.0, from Redistributed, Send flag is 0x0 Composite metric is (28160/0), Route is External Vector metric: Minimum bandwidth is 100000 Kbit Total delay is 100 microseconds Reliability is 255/255 Load is 1/255 Minimum MTU is 1500 ID Hop count is 0 External data: Originating router is 172.31.4.100 (this system) AS number of route is 1 External protocol is OSPF, external metric is 0 Administrator tag is 150 (0x00000096)
Originating Router AS # Protocol of Origin External Metric Admin Tags

BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
36
18

Why is the administrative distance higher on an external?
To prefer Internal EIGRP routes over EIGRP Externals To prefer routing information originating within our AS over that which originated somewhere outside our control
Administrative Distances Route Source Default Distance Values
Connected interface Static route EIGRP summary route eBGP Internal EIGRP IGRP OSPF (IS-IS) RIP On Demand Routing (ODR) External EIGRP iBGP Unknown 0 1 5 20 90 100 110 115 120 160 170 200 255
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
37
Topologies and Techniques
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
38
19
Topologies and Techniques

Hub and Spoke Design EIGRP Stubs EIGRP DMVPN Redundancy Load Sharing Fast Convergence Using Bandwidth Redistribution Multiple AS
39
Hub and Spoke Design

Hub and spoke networks are often built over point-tomultipoint networks If the hub is configured to treat the entire point-to-multipoint network as a single interface, it can transmit multicast and broadcast packets which are received by all spoke routers Layer 3 on the hub router will not notice a single circuit failure
interface s0/0 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
Packets Transmitted Here Are Received by All Spokes
Packets Transmitted Here Are Received Only by the Hub Router
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
40
20

The hub router can also be configured to treat each spokes circuit as an individual point-to-point circuit on a subinterface If end-to-end signaling is in use, a failed circuit will cause the subinterface to fail
interface s0/0.1 point-to-point ip address 10.1.1.0 255.255.255.254 .... interface s0/0.2 point-to-point ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.254 .... interface s0/0.3 point-to-point ip address 10.1.1.4 255.255.255.254
Packets Transmitted Here Are Received by One Spoke
Packets Transmitted Here Are Received Only by the Hub Router

interface s0.1 point-to-point ip address 10.1.1.x 255.255.255.254 ....
41

Summarize towards the core
Number the remote links out of the same address space as the remote networks, if possible Use /31s to conserve address space for point-to-points
access-list 10 deny 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 10 permit any .... router eigrp 100 distribute-list 10 out
Summary Only 0.0.0.0/0

192.1 68.0.0 /31
1 0.2/3 168. 192.
Send the remotes a default only If you cant address the links out of the summary address space, then use a distribute list to filter them from being advertised back into the core of the network
192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.2.0/24

42
1 4/3 0. 8. 16 2. 19
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
21

In single homed hub and spoke networks, the hub router, spoke routers, and the links themselves are all single points of failure
You can mitigate the single point of failure in the routers using high availability techniques
Highly Available
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
43

All the same principles apply to dual homed hub and spoke networks
Summarize or filter the links to the remotes Use /31s on point-to-points to conserve address space
Provide as little information as possible to the remotes

Something more than a default route may be required to provide optimal routing
Avoid Summary Black Holes!
192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.2.0/24
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
44
22

How do we limit the amount of information passed down to the remote sites? You can summarize at A and B towards the remote routers
The summary will generate a local route with an administrative distance of 5 The external default route learned from D will have an administrative distance of 170 What happens?
C ip summary-address eigrp 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 D* 0.0.0.0/0 is a summary, 00:08:41, Null0
D Internet
External Default Route

D EX 0.0.0.0/0
EIGRP
45

In this case, the locally generated discard route wins
The route learned from D will not be installed in the local table Hosts behind C will not be able to reach destinations on the Internet
EIGRP D Internet External Default Route
D EX 0.0.0.0/0
There are ways to prevent this discard route from being installed, but we need to be careful with the design
Routing Loops Routing Black Holes
There is enough rope here to hang yourself! ip summary-address eigrp 1

0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 D* 0.0.0.0/0 is a summary, 00:08:41, Null0
46
23

If two routing protocols provide a route to the same destination, how do we choose between them?
Their metrics are not comparable An administrative distance is added to each route learned based on the protocol installing the route
router(config)#ip route 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 null0 router#show ip eigrp topology P 10.0.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2681856 via 10.1.1.1 (2681856/2169856)
The EIGRP Route Wins
Distance 90
Static routes can be configured with a distance

This can create a floating static The route will not be used unless the dynamic protocols have no route to that destination
The Static Route Wins
Distance 1
router(config)#ip route 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 null0 200
Distance 200
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
47

The route generated by the summary is called a discard route What would happen if this route isnt created?
Configure two routers back to back with overlapping summaries Generate a packet towards 10.1.2.1 from either router At A, the best path is through 10.1.0.0/16 to B At B, the best path is through 10.0.0.0/8 to A Routing Loop
ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.2.1.0/24 10.1.2.1 10.1.0.0/16 10.0.0.0/8
10.1.1.0/24
ip summary-address eigrp 1 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
48
24

To remove the discard route
In EIGRP, add an administrative distance after the ip summary address; make sure this value is greater than 170 C will then learn the 2 External EIGRP routes from A and B
Internet D External Default Route
D EX 0.0.0.0/0
EIGRP
C
ip summary-address eigrp 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 200 D* 0.0.0.0/0 [170/409600] via <A> [170/409600] via <B>
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
49

What happens if A loses its path to D?
C will not prefer the internal learned through A over the external learned through B We have a black hole
A B D Internet External Default Route
D EX 0.0.0.0/0
EIGRP
C
ip summary-address eigrp 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 200 D* 0.0.0.0/0 [170/409600] via <A> [170/409600] via <B> D* 0.0.0.0/0 [90/409600] via <A>
50
25

You can also use floating static routes at the two hub routers and redistribute them into the routing protocol
Distribute list 10 only allows the default route to be advertised to the remotes Distribute list 20 prevents a default route from being leaked back into the core
access-list 10 permit host 0.0.0.0 access-list 20 deny host 0.0.0.0 access-list 20 permit any .... ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 null0 250 .... router eigrp 100 redistribute static distribute-list 10 out <remote 1> distribute-list 10 out <remote 2> distribute-list 10 out <remote 3> distribute-list 20 out <core>
This has the same problem if a single link back towards the core and the injected external route both fail
There are other situations under which this also fails
51

One solution is to have a link between the summarizing routers across which they share full routing information Conditional advertisement of routing information is another possible solution
OSPF can conditionally generate a default route EIGRP has conditional advertisement as a planned feature
C A D Internet External Default Route
D EX 0.0.0.0/0
EIGRP
Full Routing Information

BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
52
26

EIGRP can run over either a multipoint interface at the hub router or point-to-point subinterfaces
A single multipoint interface is easier to configure but it can be harder to troubleshoot P2P subinterfaces allow for more granular failure detection.
Single Multipoint or Several Point-to-Points
Use summarization at the hub routers to reduce information into the network core Provide as little information to the remotes as possible
Declare the remote routers as stubs
192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.2.0/24

router eigrp 100 eigrp stub connected ....
53
EIGRP Stubs
When a router running EIGRP loses its connection to a network, it first searches for alternate loop free paths If it finds none, it then sends queries to each of its neighbors, looking for an alternate path
10.1.1.0/24
router-a#sho ip eigrp topo IP-EIGRP Topology Table .... P 10.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 281600 via Connected, Ethernet1/2 router-a#show ip eigrp events Event information for AS 100: .... 12 Active net/peers: 10.1.1.0/24 1 14 FC not sat Dmin/met: 4294967295 128256 15 Find FS: 10.1.1.0/24 128256 .... 18 Conn rt down: 10.1.1.0/24 Ethernet 3/1
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
54
27
EIGRP Stubs
If the neighbor has no path to this destination, it replies The router then removes all references to this route from its local tables In large hub and spoke networks, the hub routers have to build queries and process replies from each of the spokes This impacts scaling!
10.1.1.0/24
router-a#show ip eigrp events Event information for AS 100: 1 NDB delete: 10.1.1.0/24 1 .... 12 Active net/peers: 10.1.1.0/24 1 14 FC not sat Dmin/met: 4294967295 128256 15 Find FS: 10.1.1.0/24 128256 .... 18 Conn rt down: 10.1.1.0/24 Ethernet 3/1
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
55
EIGRP Stubs
If these spokes are remote sites, they have two connections for resiliency, not so they can transit traffic between A and B A should never use the spokes as a path to anything, so theres no reason to learn about, or query for, routes through these spokes
10.1.1.0/24
Dont Use These Paths
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
56
28
EIGRP Stubs
To signal A and B that the paths through the spokes should not be used, the spoke routers can be configured as stubs
10.1.1.0/24
router#config t router(config)#router eigrp 100 router(config-router)#EIGRP stub connected router(config-router)#
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
57
EIGRP Stubs
Marking the spokes as stubs allows them to signal A and B that they are not valid transit paths A will not query stubs, reducing the total number of queries in this example to one Marking the remotes as stubs also reduces the complexity of this topology; B now believes it only has one path to 10.1.1.0/24, rather than five
M d ke ar as
10.1.1.0/24
s ub St
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
58
29
EIGRP Stubs
If stub connected is configured
B will advertise 10.1.2.0/24 to A
10.1.3.0/24 A 10.2.2.2/31 B
B will not advertise 10.1.2.0/23, 10.1.3.0/23, or 10.1.4.0/24
If stub summary is configured

B will advertise 10.1.2.0/23 to A B will not advertise 10.1.2.0/24, 10.1.3.0/24, or 10.1.4.0/24
10.1.2.0/24
ip route 10.1.4.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.10 ! interface serial 0 ip summary-address eigrp 10.1.2.0 255.255.254.0 5 ! router eigrp 100 redistribute static metric 1000 1 255 1 1500 network 10.2.2.2 0.0.0.1 network 10.1.2.0 0.0.0.255 eigrp stub connected eigrp stub summary
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
59
EIGRP Stubs
If stub static is configured
10.1.3.0/24 A 10.2.2.2/31 B
If stub receive-only is configured

B wont advertise anything to A, so A needs to have a static route to the networks behind B to reach them
10.1.2.0/24
ip route 10.1.4.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.10 ! interface serial 0 ip summary-address eigrp 10.1.2.0 255.255.254.0 ! router eigrp 100 redistribute static 1000 1 255 1 1500 network 10.2.2.2 0.0.0.1 network 10.1.2.0 0.0.0.255 eigrp stub static eigrp stub receive-only
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
60
30
EIGRP Stubs
If stub redistributed is configured
10.1.3.0/24 A 10.2.2.2/31 B
10.1.2.0/24
ip route 10.1.4.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.10 ! interface serial 0 ip summary-address eigrp 10.1.2.0 255.255.254.0 ! router eigrp 100 redistribute static 1000 1 255 1 1500 network 10.2.2.2 0.0.0.1 network 10.1.2.0 0.0.0.255 eigrp stub redistributed
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
61
EIGRP Stubs
Any combination of the route types can be specified on the eigrp stub statement, except receive-only, which cannot be used with any other option For example:
eigrp stub connected summary redistributed
If eigrp stub is specified without any options, it will actually enable eigrp stub connected summary
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
62
31
EIGRP Stubs
At A, you can tell B is a stub using show ip eigrp neighbor detail
A 10.1.3.0/24
RTO Q Seq Cnt Num 200 0 9
10.2.2.2/31
B 10.1.2.0/24
router-a#show ip eigrp neighbor detail IP-EIGRP neighbors for process 100 H Address Interface 0 Hold Uptime SRTT (sec) (ms) 10.2.2.3 Se0 13 00:00:15 9 Version 12.4/1.2, Retrans: 0, Retries: 0, Prefixes: 1 Stub Peer Advertising ( CONNECTED ) Routes Suppressing queries
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
63
EIGRP Stubs
At B, you can see that the EIGRP process for AS 100 is running as a stub using show ip protocols
A 10.1.3.0/24
10.2.2.2/31
B 10.1.2.0/24
router-b#show ip protocols Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100" Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set Default networks flagged in outgoing updates Default networks accepted from incoming updates EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0 EIGRP maximum hopcount 100 EIGRP maximum metric variance 1 EIGRP stub, connected Redistributing: static, eigrp 100 . . .
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
64
32
EIGRP Hub and Spoke

How Many Neighbors?
The green line shows the rate at which the convergence time increases as EIGRP neighbors are added to hub routers and does not pass 500 The red line shows the convergence time if the neighbors added are all configured as EIGRP stub routers and scales to over 1000 peers Measure initial bring up convergence until all neighbors are established and queues empty Dual Homed Remotes, NPE-G1 with 1G RAM, 3000 prefixes advertised to each spoke
9
Time (Minutes)
Non-Stub EIGRP Stub

5
Test Performed with 12.3(14)T1

2 0
500
1000
1500
Number of Neighbors
65
EIGRP Hub and Spoke

Failover Time
The green line with the steep slope shows the rate at which the failover convergence time increases as EIGRP neighbors are added to a single hub router The red line shows the failover convergence time if the neighbors added are all configured as EIGRP stub routers and is extremely linear in behavior Primary Hub failed, time measured for EIGRP to complete failover convergence Dual Homed Remotes, NPE-G1 with 1G RAM, 3000 prefixes advertised to each spoke
60
Time (Minutes)
Non-Stub
15
Test Performed with 12.3(14)T1
1 0 0
EIGRP Stub
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Number of Neighbors
66
33
EIGRP Hub and Spoke

Summary Most EIGRP Neighbors Seen
800 Deployed in live, working networks 1400 is the largest number ever tested in a lab environment
Key Strategy for achieving scalability is design!

Stub for EIGRP hub and spoke environments is a must Minimize advertisements to spokes
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
67
EIGRP DMVPN
Single DMVPN Hub Single mGRE tunnel on all nodes
192.168.0.0/24 .2 Physical: 172.17.0.5 Tunnel0: 10.0.0.2
Physical: (Dynamic) Tunnel0: 10.0.0.12
Spoke B Physical: (Dynamic) Tunnel0: 10.0.0.11
.1
.37 Web
192.168.12.0/24
.1 192.168.11.0/24
Spoke A .25 PC
...
68
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
..
34
EIGRP DMVPN
Dual DMVPN Hub Single mGRE tunnel on all nodes Physical: 172.17.0.5
Tunnel0: 10.0.0.2 192.168.0.0/24 .2 .1
Physical: 172.17.0.1 Tunnel0: 10.0.0.1
Mixed Stub Types on Shared Media CSCdx74716 12.2(35.01)S 12.4(7)
Spoke B
.1
.37 Web
192.168.12.0/24
.1 192.168.11.0/24
Spoke A .25 PC
...
69
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
EIGRP DMVPN
How many neighbors can we have on a single tunnel? Currently, the practical maximum is 600 while advertising no more than 5k prefixes
Convergence Time (seconds) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 400 500 600 541 863 175 311 368 645 805 100 1000 5000 8000 10000 20000 344
Peer Count, Prefixes
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
..
Cisco Public
70
35
EIGRP DMVPN
What about dual hubs, single DMVPN? Currently, the practical maximum is 600 while advertising no more than 5k prefixes
Convergence Time
200 Peers
300 Peers
100 Peers
400 Peers
500 Peers
Routes Convergence (seconds)
40000 613
20000 622
15000 778
10000 652
8000 650
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
600 Peers
5000 549
Cisco Public
71
EIGRP DMVPN
Customer Experience Current Max Recommended is 500 peers on a single tunnel, chassis 5,000 peers on the whole network, terminating on 10 hub routers to distribute the load Typical to have each spoke advertise between 25 prefixes to the hubs Convergence time 35 seconds during a failover Another network is scaling to 400 peers and 10,000 prefixes (specific routes needed for spoke-to-spoke capability)
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
72
36
EIGRP DMVPN
EIGRP DMVPN Enhancements
Initial convergence testing was done with 400 peers with 10,000 prefixes to each peer
Convergence Time
35 30
33 min
Measure initial bring up convergence until all neighbors are established and queues empty
EIGRP DMVPN Phase 0 (prior to 12.4(7)) EIGRP DMVPN Phase I (12.4(7) and later) EIGRP DMVPN Phase II (CSCei03733)
25 20 15 10 5
11 min
3 min
Phase 0
Phase I
Phase II
73
EIGRP DMVPN
Testing Based on 12.4(7) for EIGRP (Phase I)
Big Improvements for EIGRP went into this release!
Study performed to analyze the impact of increasing Prefix count and compare that to increasing Peer counts to find the bottlenecks Data for Single Hub and Dual Hub essentially equivalent Peers were fixed at 500, prefixes were increased from 020k Prefixes were fixed at 5k, peers were increased from 100700
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
74
37
EIGRP DMVPN
Effect of Prefix Count on Scaling
Varying Prefix Count, 500 Peers Convergence Measurement
1600 1400 1200 1000 Time (sec) 800 600 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Prefixes 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
75
EIGRP DMVPN
Effect of Peer Count on Scaling
Varying Peer Count, 5k Prefixes on Convergence
3500
3000
2500
Time (sec)
2000
1500
1000
500
0 100 200 300 400 Peer Count 500 600 700
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
76
38
EIGRP DMVPN
Currently Phase II is underway to increase these scalability numbers significantly Focus of Phase II is to increase peer counts, prefix counts, and convergence timespushing the limits closer to the theoretical maximum of 2000 peers per interface Preliminary testing of these additional enhancements have verified further scalability and stability, with faster convergence as well More to come on DMVPN!!
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
77
EIGRP DMVPN Scaling

Conclusions Clearly Peer Count is the bottleneck There is a combined impact with Prefix count, but Peer count is the dominate variable Phase II enhancements are currently undergoing testing and review
Focused on increasing Peer count significantly Continued increase of Prefix count Combined impact targeting overall significant reduction in convergence
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
78
39
Redundancy
There are several reasons for redundancy in a network:
To provide multiple attachment points for servers and hosts in case of a link or device failure To provide alternate links through the network in case of link or device failure To provide optimal routing to services To provide load sharing in heavily utilized areas
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
79
Redundancy
Its common to build networks with back-to-back routers for redundancy The routing protocol sees each of these links as a possible transit path, so each link adds another set of paths the routing protocol must consider when calculating the best path You want to route to these links, not through them
RP Transit Paths HSRP Peers
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
80
40
Redundancy
The solution to this is passive-interface Configuring an interface as passive in EIGRP, OSPF, or IS-IS will cause it not to form neighbor relationships across the link These networks will still be advertised as reachable destinations, but they will never be advertised as transit links
router eigrp 100 passive-interface default no passive-interface fastethernet 1/0 ....
-or-
router eigrp 100 passive-interface passive-interface passive-interface passive-interface ....
fastethernet fastethernet fastethernet fastethernet
0/0 0/1 0/2 0/3

81
Redundancy
Its common to build out alternate links in a network
Adds network resiliency Can provide optimal routing to resources Adds additional bandwidth in congested areas of the network
The second link also adds moderate complexity, and more information, into the network
Backup Path
Additional Bandwidth
Optimal Routing
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
82
41
Redundancy
If Two Is Good Three Must Be Better Right?
Adding a third link almost always approaches the point of diminishing returns, and adds much more network complexity When considering adding more redundancy, always balance the increased resiliency against the added complexity
Increased network convergence times Increased management effort Increased troubleshooting times
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
83
Redundancy
The impact of greater levels of redundancy on convergence times can be seen in routing protocol scalability testing Using EIGRP, with a single backup path, it takes about 1.3 seconds for a router with 10000 routes to converge when the best path fails
2.5
Seconds
1.3
Routes
10000
Feasible Successor Best Path Fails
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
84
42
Redundancy
Adding the third path increases convergence time to 2 seconds Adding the fourth path increases convergence time to 2.25 seconds
2.5 2.25 2.0 Seconds
1.3
Routes
10000
Best Path Fails
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
85
Redundancy
More Is Not Always Better
High availability studies also show the impact of adding the third link is not all that great
Adding a second link will increase reliability significantly Adding a third link approaches the point of diminishing returns
100.00
Reliability
99.90 99.80 99.70 99.60 99.50 1 Link 2 Links 3 Links 4 Links
Combined with the impact of:

Slower convergence times Higher management costs Slower troubleshooting
The total downtime in a network may actually increase with the addition of large amounts of redundancy
86
43
Redundancy
If youre adding more links to increase the available bandwidth in a specific place in the network
Try to hide this complexity from other parts of the network, if possible Summarize just the parallel links into a single advertisement at both sides if youre using a distance vector protocol
Summary
Summary
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
87
Redundancy
Layer 2 bundling (such MLPPP or EtherChannel) may be useful to reduce the layer 3 complexity when using multiple links to build required bandwidth But be careful of issues with processor utilization due to bundling overhead, troubleshooting complexity, etc.
Link Bundle
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
88
44
Redundancy
Consider using High Availability (HA) techniques to reduce overlapping redundancy Stateful Switchover/NonStop Forwarding with redundant hardware in the same box may be able to replace redundant connections to network connected devices
Single High Availability Device
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
89
Redundancy
Balance between complexity and resiliency Hide the additional complexity created by redundant links where possible
Summarization Link bundling (but balance against overhead)
Reliability
100.00 99.90 99.80 99.70 99.60 99.50 1 Link 2 Links 3 Links 4 Links
Consider High Availability techniques to reduce heavy redundancy for resiliency
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
90
45
Graceful Restart/NSF Fundamentals

Fast Hellos is a way of detecting failures fast and routing around them Graceful Restart (GR) is a way to rebuild forwarding information in routing protocols when the control plane has recovered from a failure Nonstop Forwarding (NSF) is a way to continue forwarding packets while the control plane is recovering from a failure The fundamental premise of GR/NSF is to route through temporary failures, rather than around them!
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
91
EIGRP Graceful Restart/NSF

Prior to Graceful Restart/NSF
Router A loses its control plane for some period of time It will take some time for Router B to recognize this failure, and react to it
Control Data A
Control
Data
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
92
46

Prior to Graceful Restart/NSF
During the time that A has failed, and B has not detected the failure, B will continue forwarding traffic through A Once the control plane resets, the data plane will reset as well, and this traffic will be dropped NSF reduces or eliminates the traffic dropped while As control plane is down
Reset Control Data A
Control
Data
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
93

NSF Capable
If A is NSF capable, the control plane will not reset the data plane when it restarts Instead, the forwarding information in the data plane is marked as stale Any traffic B sends to A will still be switched based on the last known forwarding information
Control Data B No Reset Control Data A
Mark Forwarding Information as Stale

94
47

NSF Capable
While As control plane is down, the routing protocol hold timer on B counts down A has to come back up and signal B before Bs hold timer expires, or B will route around it When A comes back up, it signals B that it is still forwarding traffic, and would like to resync This is the first step in Graceful Restart (GR)
Control Data A
Control
Data
Hold Timer: 15 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
95

Graceful Restart
The signal in EIGRP is an update with the initialization and restart (RS) bits set
Init + Restart
Control
Topology Information hello + Restart End of Table
Data
A sends its hellos with the restart bit set until GR is complete B transmits the routing information it knows to A When B is finished sending information, it sends a special end of table signal so A knows the table is complete
Control
Data
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
96
48

Graceful Restart
When A receives this end of table marker, it recalculates its topology table, and updates the local routing table When the local routing table is completely updated, EIGRP notifies CEF CEF then updates the forwarding tables, and removes all information marked as stale
Control Data A
Control
Data
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
97

eigrp nsf enables graceful restart show ip protocols verifies graceful restart is operational http://www.cisco.com/en/US/pr oducts/sw/iosswrel/ps1839/pro ducts_feature_guide09186a00 80160010.html
router eigrp 100 eigrp nsf ....
router eigrp 100 eigrp nsf ....
router#show ip protocols Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100 .... Redistributing: eigrp 100 EIGRP NSF-aware route hold timer is 240s Automatic network summarization is in effect Maximum path: 4 ....
98
49

Routing protocol graceful restart is supported in Cisco IOS 12.2(15)T NonStop Forwarding is supported on the:
Cisco 10000 and Cisco 12000 12.0(22)S Cisco 7500 in 12.0(22)S, with the caveat that inserting a new standby RSP will cause some traffic loss, and switching from the primary to standby RSP will cause a microcode reload on the line cards Cisco 7600/6500 12.2(18)SXD (Rockies1), which shipped in July 2004
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
99
Unequal Cost Load Sharing

Can you load share across the two available paths between A and D, even though they are not equal cost? Yes, using variance, as long as the paths are loop free
B 56K 56K C A 500K 1000K
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
100
50

D through C Distance: 560128 Reported Distance: 557568 D through B Distance: 1069568 Reported Distance: 557568 The best path is through C, so C is the successor The reported distance through B is lower than the best path through C, so this path is loop free B is the feasible successor (FS)
A 56K 2000ms 1000K 10ms
B 56K 2000ms
C 56K 2000ms D
101

Configure variance on router A with a value high enough to include both paths Variance is a multiplier, so it has to be some number which, when multiplied by the lower metric, is higher than or equal to the highest metric you want to include in the load sharing
Distance 1069568 A Distance 560128
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
102
51

In this case, 560128 x 2 = 1120256, which is higher than 1069568, so 2 will work as the variance
router-a(config)#router eigrp 100 router-a(config-rtr)#variance 2 router-a(config-rtr)#end
A Distance 1069568 Distance 560128
Lowest metric * variance Metric of other path

BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
103

Both paths are installed in the routing table The higher metric is then divided by each lower metric to determine the load share count 1069568/5601282 So, the load share on the path through C will be set to 2, and the load share on the path through B will be set to 1
B C Distance 1069568 A Distance 560128
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
104
52

From this point, the actual load sharing of traffic is up to the switching engine being used to forward packets For process switching, each packet forwarded through B will be matched by two packets forwarded through C
A Distance 1069568 Distance 560128
Load Share 1 Load Share 2

105
EIGRP Fast Convergence

Already a standard part of EIGRP Customers have been using EIGRP to achieve sub-second convergence for years Proper network design is a must
Design to use address summarization to limit query scope Design to provide at least one feasible successor
We can sort typical convergence times:

EIGRP with a feasible successor Link state protocols EIGRP without a feasible successor
Cisco is currently in the process of quantifying scalability numbers

106
53
EIGRP Fast Convergence

Combined Results
S EIGRP Feasible Successor EIGRP No Feasible Successor + IS-IS Default Timers \ IS-IS Tuned Timers
OSPF Tuned Timers OSPF Default Timers Tested on 12.4(3a)
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
107
Configuring Bandwidth
EIGRP paces packets based on the configured bandwidth By default, EIGRP uses 50% of the configured or default bandwidth Default bandwidth on serial links is 1544 (T1) Just using the default isnt always right
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
108
54
For point-to-point links (PPP, HDLC, ATM), configure the actual bandwidth available on the link For burstable links, configure the normal bandwidth, not the burst For point-to-point subinterfaces off a multipoint link, configure the committed access rate, rather than the line speed
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
109
For 0 CIR links, guess You need to set it high enough to get EIGRP to work, so 56k is probably a reasonable number
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
110
55
If you need to change the amount of actual bandwidth EIGRP is using, use the percentage bandwidth interface command to adjust this, rather than setting the bandwidth IP Percentage-Bandwidth EIGRP <AS> <Percentage> By default, EIGRP uses 50% of the configured or default bandwidth
111
Dial and point-tomultipoint links present some difficulties Each peer which connects over a multipoint reduces the available bandwidth by division
A
512k
Remote Sites
112
56
One peer: Two peers: Four peers: Five peers: 512k available 256k available
512k A
Three peers: 170k available 128k available 102k available
Remote Sites
113
At some point, EIGRP wont have enough bandwidth to operate correctly Use dialer profiles for dial links, which makes EIGRP treat them as point-topoint links Use subinterfaces for multipoint interfaces
A
512k
Remote Sites
114
57
Problems with Using Bandwidth

Assume you would like to influence the path that packets switched by router A will take to router D
107 + delays * 256 min (bandwidth )
A 1000K 1000K
Using bandwidth, you will need to lower the bandwidth on the A-C link or the A-B link to something lower than 56K Bandwidth is not granular enough to effectively control traffic flow
B 56K 56K
Control over These Two Links Only!
115

Reducing the bandwidth on either the A-B or the A-C link will also impact EIGRPs operation EIGRP uses the configured bandwidth to control the rate at which packets are transmitted across a link via the packet pacing timer
A 1000K 1000K
B 56K
Must Be Reduced Dramatically to Impact Path Selection!
C 56K
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
116
58

Dont use bandwidth to influence path selection! Set the bandwidth to the actual available bandwidth, and use the delay to influence traffic flow Delay is added inbound; set the delay on As interface which connects to B or C
1000K A 1000K
B 56K Configure Delay Here 56K
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
117
Multiple Autonomous Systems

Do You Really Want to Do This?
Okay, maybe its not that bad But we still wouldnt recommend it
118
59

A route is redistributed from RIP into AS 200 At A, it is redistributed into AS 100 B receives this route as well; which of the two externals will it prefer? There are two routes learned through separate routing processes with the same administrative distance, so the route installed first wins
AS 100
AS 200 C RIP
119

If router B prefers the route through AS 100, it will redistribute the route back into AS200 If the redistribution metric at B is lower than the redistribution metric at C, A will prefer the path through B We have a permanent loop!
AS 100
A
Metric 1000
B
Metric 500
AS 200 C RIP
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
120
60

If router B prefers the route through AS 100, it will redistribute the route back into AS200 If the redistribution metric at B is lower than the redistribution metric at C, A will prefer the path through B We have a permanent loop!
AS 100
A
Metric 1000
B
Metric 500
AS 200 C RIP
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
121

CSCdm47037 resolves the routing loop and the suboptimal routing (12.2(06.01)T) If two routes with the same administrative distances are compared, and the process type is the same (both EIGRP), then compare the metrics of the routes as well http://www.cisco.com/cgibin/Support/Bugtool/onebug.pl?bugid=CSCdm47037
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
122
61

External routes can also carry administrative tags; as the external route is redistributed into AS 100 at A, it can be tagged This tag can then be used to block the redistribution of the route back into AS 200 at B
route-map settag permit 10 set tag 100 ! router eigrp 100 redistribute eigrp 200 route-map settag ....
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
AS 100
Tag 100
A AS 200
RIP
route-map filtertag deny 10 match tag 100 route-map filtertag permit 20 ! router eigrp 200 redistribute eigrp 100 route-map filtertag
Cisco Public
123

This blocks the formation of the loop, since A will no longer receive the redistributed routes from B through AS 200 B still receives both routes, however, and could still choose the path through AS 100, resulting in suboptimal routing
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
AS 100
tag 100
A AS 200
RIP
route-map filtertag deny 10 match tag 100 route-map filtertag permit 20 ! router eigrp 200 redistribute eigrp 100 route-map filtertag
Cisco Public
124
62

If the redistribution metric is not manually set at A, it will be carried from AS 200 into 100 The cost of the path between A and B is then added at B At B, the route through AS 200 wins; it has the lower metric
A
Metric 1000
AS 100
Metric 1500
AS 200
RIP
IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(100)/ID(10.0.17.10) .... P 10.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 1500 via 10.0.6.4 (1500/1000), FastEthernet0/0 .... IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(200)/ID(10.2.17.10) .... P 10.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 1000 via 10.2.8.20 (1000/256256), FastEthernet0/1
125

CSCdt43016, Support for Incoming Route Filtering Based on Route Maps, makes it possible to filter routes based on any route map condition before it is accepted into the local routing protocol database (12.2T 12.0S) This is listed as an OSPF feature, but it works for all routing protocols http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/softwa re/ios122/122relnt/xprn122t/122tnewf.htm#33626
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
126
63

This blocks the formation of the loop, since B will no longer have the path redistributed from A into AS 100 in its topology table This also prevents the suboptimal routing
AS 100
A AS 200
RIP
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
route-map filtertag deny 10 match tag 100 route-map filtertag permit 20 ! router eigrp 100 distribute-list route-map filtertag in
Cisco Public
127

But, before you rush off and configure your network with multiple autonomous systems What are you gaining by designing a network this way?
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
128
64

A query originates at router C, and propagates to router A The query stops at A, and a reply is sent back The query range has been limited at A; the query stopped there, and was replied to; or has it? ...
A
Query
Reply
AS 100
AS 200 C
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
129

What happens at A in AS 100? A now needs to query all of its neighbors, including the neighbors in AS 100 A builds a query in AS 100, and sends it to B; if the timing is right, B will have already received and replied to the query from C, so it would answer that it has no alternate path The query wasnt stopped, it was just delayed along the way!
AS 100
A
Query Reply
AS 200 C
130
65

Dont use multiple autonomous systems for scaling, they dont limit query range General scaling methods (summarization, distribute lists, stubs, etc.) actually limit query scope Multiple autonomous systems are fine for merging two networks over time, but they are not a permanent solution
AS 100
A
Query Reply
AS 200 C
131
Managing EIGRP
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
132
66
Managing EIGRP
Reading the EIGRP Topology Table Reading Show IP EIGRP Neighbors Neighbor Logging Event Log
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
133
Reading the EIGRP Topology Table

Summary of the Topology Table provides a quick snapshot of the routers status and topology Shows the following:
Number of routes in the local topology table Number of queries that this router is waiting to receive a reply Number of interfaces enabled for EIGRP Number of Neighbors/Number of Interfaces Quiescent interfacesthose interfaces with nothing to send or have acknowledged
Router#sh ip eigrp topology summary IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(120.0.0.1) Head serial 341880, next serial 640141 3027 routes, 0 pending replies, 0 dummies IP-EIGRP(0) enabled on 1002 interfaces, 1007 neighbors present on 1002 interfaces Quiescent interfaces: Gi0/0.100 Tu10000 Tu871 Tu162 Tu466 Tu268 Tu841 Tu221 Tu528
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
134
67

router#show ip eigrp topology IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(70.1.1.2) Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R Reply, r - reply Status, s - sia Status P 41.1.28.52/30, 1 successors, FD is 21026560 via 60.1.1.2 (21026560/20514560), FastEthernet1/0 via 60.1.2.1 (46740736/20514560), FastEthernet1/1
Feasible Distance
Successor State Computed Distance Reported Distance Feasible Successor
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
135
Reading Show IP EIGRP Neighbors

Handle: Internal use to keep track of the Neighbors Address: Neighbor IP address Interface: Local Interface which connects to that Neighbor Hold Time: Seconds remaining before declaring that neighbor down Uptime: The period of time since the neighbor was most recently discovered SRTT: The number of milliseconds it takes for this neighbor to respond to reliable packets RTO: How long well wait before retransmitting if we get no acknowledgement Q Cnt: Number of outstanding packets waiting to be acknowledged by the neighbor Seq Num: Counter to track the number of packets sent to the neighbor
router#show ip eigrp neighbor IP-EIGRP neighbors for process 1 H Address Interface 4 1.1.1.5 0 1.1.1.6 412 120.0.14.126 404 120.0.11.210 1003 120.0.5.106
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Gi0/0.100 Gi0/0.100 Tu928 Tu757 Tu347

Cisco Public
Hold Uptime SRTT (sec) (ms) 14 01:09:54 326 14 1d19h 63 14 1d22h 1155 14 1d22h 988 12 1d22h 51
RTO 1956 378 5000 5000 5000
Q Cnt 0 0 0 0 0
Seq Num 417750148 91717867 105 83 101

136
68

Show ip eigrp topology active
Information about links that are currently in active state
Show ip eigrp topology all-links

Displays all information about everything that EIGRP has in the topology table
Show ip eigrp topology <net> <mask>

Displays everything that the eigrp process has for a specific route
Show ip eigrp topology zero

Shows the zero successor links, or routes that dont make it into the routing table as another route with a better Admin Distance has won
137
Neighbor Logging
Provides the frequency and reason that a neighbor changes state Strong recommendation to always have this functionality enabled
Enabled under router eigrp process eigrp log-neighbor-changes Default behavior since 12.2(12)
Use the logging buffer to minimize potential impact

Enabled globally: logging buffered 10000
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
138
69
Neighbor LoggingDemystified!
New AdjacencyWhy look dear, we have a new neighbor
Either initial startup or recovery after a neighbor has gone down
Holding Time ExpiredNo EIGRP packets were seen from this neighbor for the duration of the hold time
Typically 15 seconds, though some are 180
Peer RestartedNot my fault!

The other router reset the peer and thats where you need to look to find the reason
Retry Limit ExceededA reliable packet was not acknowledged after at least 16 retransmissions
(Actual number is based on the hold time, but there were at least 16)
Route Filter ChangeEIGRP doesnt refresh routes; when a filter changes that affects what is sent to the peers the neighbor is dropped to remove the old information and then it is retold with the new filter in place (Graceful Restart could minimize the impact of this!)
Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr 21 21 21 21 21 11:02:22.285: 11:02:22.941: 11:02:22.953: 10:52:24.787: 11:12:42.945: Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor 40.1.24.134 (ATM1/0.2934) is up: new adjacency 40.1.16.98 (ATM1/0.1955) is down: holding time expired 40.1.7.86 (ATM1/0.872) is down: peer restarted 60.1.1.2 (FastEthernet1/1) is down: retry limit exceed 40.1.16.110 (ATM1/0.1963) is down: route filter changed
139
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
Event Log
The most important tool for getting a view of whats going on in the network Always running, separate log kept per AS Default 500 lines (very little actually)
eigrp event-log-size <number of lines> 0 lines disables logging If you can spare the memory (very little) increasing the size is recommended!
Read from the bottom up as new events are written on top The log may be cleared by entering:
clear ip eigrp event
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
140
70
MIB Support
Introduction of EIGRP MIB
12.3(14T) Included in images with SNMP feature base
Currently IPv4 only, but IPv6 in the works

(Along with EIGRP for IPv6, 12.4(T))
Implemented Per AS, Per VPN basis

Allows for granular reporting and management of EIGRP in multi AS, VPN and non-VPN networks
Sample configuration:
Router(config)# snmp-server host 10.0.0.1 traps version 2c NETMANAGER eigrp Router(config) snmp-server community EIGRP1NET1A Router(config)# snmp-server enable traps eigrp
141
MIB Support
Includes two Traps
eigrpRouteSIA eigrpAuthFailure
Five Object Groups on a per VPN, per AS basis

EIGRP VPN Table EIGRP Traffic Statistics EIGRP Topology Data EIGRP Neighbor Data EIGRP Interface Data
For more specifics on the objects and MIB please see the following: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00803d2d3d.html
142
71
MIB Support
EIGRP Traffic Statistics
AS Number Hellos Sent/Received Updates Sent/Received Queries Sent/Received Replies Sent/Received
EIGRP Interface Data

Peer Count Reliable/Unreliable Queues Pacing Pending Routes Hello Interval
EIGRP Topology Data

Destination Net/Mask Active State Feasible Successors Origin Type Distance Reported Distance
EIGRP Neighbor Data

Peer Address Peer Interface Hold Time Up Time SRTT/RTO Version
And Many More...

143
Q and A
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
144
72
Recommended Reading
Continue your Cisco Live learning experience with further reading from Cisco Press Check the Recommended Reading flyer for suggested books
Available Onsite at the Cisco Company Store

145
Recommended Reading
ASIN: 1578701651
ISBN: 0201657732
ISBN 1587051877
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
146
73
Complete Your Online Session Evaluation

Give us your feedback and you could win fabulous prizes; winners announced daily Receive 20 Passport points for each session evaluation you complete Complete your session evaluation online now (open a browser through our wireless network to access our portal) or visit one of the Internet stations throughout the Convention Center
Dont forget to activate your Cisco Live virtual account for access to all session material on-demand and return for our live virtual event in October 2008 Go to the Collaboration Zone in World of Solutions or visit www.cisco-live.com
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
147
BRKRST-2330 14341_04_2008_c1
Cisco Public
148
74

BRKRST 2330

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BRKRST 2330

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EIGRP Deployment

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

EIGRP Neighbor Formation

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

EIGRP Neighbor Formation

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

EIGRP Neighbor Formation

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

EIGRP Neighbor Formation

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 7 + delays * 256 min(bandwidth)

Calculated metric is called the composite metric

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

BW: 100 Delay: 1000

BW: 56 Delay: 2000 Minimum

10 7 + delays * 256 min(bandwidth)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 7 + delays * 256 min(bandwidth) 107 + 3100 * 256 = 46507885 56

Why the 256?

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)

2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Active Process

10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Active Timer Set Query

2006, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Presentation_ID.scr

The Active Process

10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Remove 10.1.1.0/24 Query

Reply 10.1.10/24 Gone; No FS Remove 10.1.1.0/24 Query

Reply 10.1.10/24 Gone Remove 10.1.1.0/24