RIP route question
chapapa
Member Posts: 40 ■■□□□□□□□□
in CCNA & CCENT
Here is my configuration of RIPv2. I'am expecting my RIP to take a path of R2>R3 when I would ping 10.1.1.9 since RIP uses the least hop count. To my surprise it goes the other way R2>R1>R5>R4>R3. I'am trying to troubleshoot the problem, and found out on my routing table that My R2 uses the R1 as its next hop address.
how do you fix RIP to take the least hop count to the destination network? can I manipulate it's next hop address? thank you!
how do you fix RIP to take the least hop count to the destination network? can I manipulate it's next hop address? thank you!
Comments
-
Mrock4
Banned Posts: 2,359 ■■■■■■■■□□
I would check the link between R2 and R3 with regards to RIP and ensure it's included in your "network" statements- since R2 is taking the longest path around to reach the 10.1.1.8/30 network, it seems to suggest there's an issue between R2 and R3.
That being said, if it was working normally and you wanted to push traffic a different route, you could use an offset list to increase the metric for the shorter path (and thus force traffic over the other path). -
chapapa
Member Posts: 40 ■■□□□□□□□□
I would check the link between R2 and R3 with regards to RIP and ensure it's included in your "network" statements- since R2 is taking the longest path around to reach the 10.1.1.8/30 network, it seems to suggest there's an issue between R2 and R3.
That being said, if it was working normally and you wanted to push traffic a different route, you could use an offset list to increase the metric for the shorter path (and thus force traffic over the other path).
The link between R2 and R3 are working. so how do you do that offset list? -
jdballinger
Member Posts: 252
Can you post your router configs for R2 and R3 (just the routing statements and RIP config would be fine) as it's much easier to troubleshoot when you have that available. -
Mrock4
Banned Posts: 2,359 ■■■■■■■■□□
Do a "debug ip rip" and verify you are actually receiving RIP routes via the link between R2/R3...being able to ping between them verifies the link itself is up, but does not mean RIP is talking over that link. If you're not receiving RIP routes via this link, the offset list will do nothing but increase the metric of the only available path.
for the offset list, create an ACL matching the routes you want to increase the metric for, then:
router rip
offset-list [ACL name] {in | out} offset X where X = the amount of hop counts to add to the current metric.
To verify check the ip routing table on the neighboring devices or debug ip rip and verify it's sending those routes with the new (higher) metric. -
chapapa
Member Posts: 40 ■■□□□□□□□□
jdballinger wrote: »Can you post your router configs for R2 and R3 (just the routing statements and RIP config would be fine) as it's much easier to troubleshoot when you have that available.
r2
router rip
version 2
network 10.0.0.0
r3
router rip
version 2
network 10.0.0.0Do a "debug ip rip" and verify you are actually receiving RIP routes via the link between R2/R3...being able to ping between them verifies the link itself is up, but does not mean RIP is talking over that link. If you're not receiving RIP routes via this link, the offset list will do nothing but increase the metric of the only available path.
for the offset list, create an ACL matching the routes you want to increase the metric for, then:
router rip
offset-list [ACL name] {in | out} offset X where X = the amount of hop counts to add to the current metric.
To verify check the ip routing table on the neighboring devices or debug ip rip and verify it's sending those routes with the new (higher) metric.
is that offset-list is still on CCNA level?
-
Mrock4
Banned Posts: 2,359 ■■■■■■■■□□
No offset-lists on the CCNA that I am aware of, but why limit yourself!
-
Dynaice
Member Posts: 15 ■□□□□□□□□□
Do you have a no auto-summary on all of the router statements? It may be possible that the router doesn't know which way to go since you are just stating a 10.0.0.0 network and due to split horizon router 3 isn't learning routes to router 2 on that interface since it learned them initially from router 4?
-
d6bmg
Member Posts: 242 ■■■□□□□□□□
is that offset-list is still on CCNA level?
No, But why limit yourself? You are getting knowledge about a new idea. Learn it, use it.[ ]CCDA; [ ] CCNA Security -
theodoxa
Member Posts: 1,340 ■■■■□□□□□□
Do you have a no auto-summary on all of the router statements? It may be possible that the router doesn't know which way to go since you are just stating a 10.0.0.0 network and due to split horizon router 3 isn't learning routes to router 2 on that interface since it learned them initially from router 4?
Why does auto-summary even exist? It seems to create nothing but problems. I remember creating a test network using RIPv2 and VLSM a while back. For some reason (turned out to be auto-summary since both interfaces had multiple subnets derived from the same classful network), it was sending packets destined for a subnet off of Fa0/1 out Fa0/0.R&S: CCENT → CCNA → CCNP → CCIE [ ]
Security: CCNA [ ]
Virtualization: VCA-DCV [ ] -
Dynaice
Member Posts: 15 ■□□□□□□□□□
Why does auto-summary even exist? It seems to create nothing but problems. I remember creating a test network using RIPv2 and VLSM a while back. For some reason (turned out to be auto-summary since both interfaces had multiple subnets derived from the same classful network), it was sending packets destined for a subnet off of Fa0/1 out Fa0/0.
I believe the reason auto-summary is there is because if you had one side of your network that is not contiguous and many more routes than we are dealing with in these small networks or labs then you will shorten your routing table.
If you say have 50 routers in a contiguous network on one side, then instead of having all of those single routes in the border router, you can summarize it to just 10.0.0.0 is out said interface. It would reduce the memory needed in the router to store all of those routes.
This is at least the way I understood it. Correct me if I'm wrong. -
d6bmg
Member Posts: 242 ■■■□□□□□□□
Why does auto-summary even exist? It seems to create nothing but problems. I remember creating a test network using RIPv2 and VLSM a while back. For some reason (turned out to be auto-summary since both interfaces had multiple subnets derived from the same classful network), it was sending packets destined for a subnet off of Fa0/1 out Fa0/0.
Auto summery is very useful for small home network.[ ]CCDA; [ ] CCNA Security
