eigrp and load balancing issue

You first need to understand why and when two routes to the same destination are installed in the routing table. Do you know this?

fredrikjj wrote: »

You first need to understand why and when two routes to the same destination are installed in the routing table. Do you know this?

I believe so. You can have one for the successor and the other as a feasible successor. And the other reason would be to load balance... which is splitting the information and sending it over 2 (or more) paths. Right?

If you look at the routes in the routing table they have certain properties that are used to decide what gets installed in the case that there are multiple routes to the same destination. Remember that the goal of the routing protocol is to be select the "best" path to a destination.

That suggests that if you want multiple routes to the same destination, they must have certain properties in common, right?

fredrikjj wrote: »

If you look at the routes in the routing table they have certain properties that are used to decide what gets installed in the case that there are multiple routes to the same destination. Remember that the goal of the routing protocol is to be select the "best" path to a destination.

That suggests that if you want multiple routes to the same destination, they must have certain properties in common, right?

yes and both routes to 192.168.4.0 have a FastEthernet network and a serial network to go through and all on the same router types so it should be common right?

Check the topology table out and look at the costs.

Yes, it looks like they should have the same metric. You now need to verify that Router C actually receives 192.168.4.0/24 on both of its interfaces.

how do I check that RouterC is receiving 192.168.4.0/24 on both interfaces? Can you ping through a specific interface?

devils_haircut

You can use an extended ping to specify both the source and destination address that you would like to use. The easiest way to do that is to just type "ping" and hit enter, then choose "y" for extended options.

CORRECTION: you can also just type "ping 10.1.1.1 so 192.168.1.5" to specify the source without having to go through all those options. "so" specifies the source address.

devils_haircut wrote: »

You can use an extended ping to specify both the source and destination address that you would like to use. The easiest way to do that is to just type "ping" and hit enter, then choose "y" for extended options.

I typed "ping" then the output was "Protocol [ip]:" not sure if this is what you meant but I tried to type y anyways and it said Unknown protocol. did I misunderstand?

JacobGates wrote: »

how do I check that RouterC is receiving 192.168.4.0/24 on both interfaces? Can you ping through a specific interface?

The network command/s should cover all the interfaces connected to networks you want to advertise. Maybe you have missed one on Router E? Also check that any of your interfaces you want EIGRP enabled on aren't passive.

Oh my god.... I feel so stupid right now. When Magic Johnson said to check Router E I typed 'show running-config' and as I was just skimming it I realized I accidently put 192.168.6.3 on the serial interface of Router E which is supposed to be 192.168.6.5. So I fixed it and now it's working like it should. Thank you all for trying to help me. In the end it was me making a stupid mistake.

devils_haircut

JacobGates wrote: »

but I tried to type y anyways and it said Unknown protocol.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. You want your protocol to be IP. When it asks if you want to use Extended Options, then you would answer "y" for yes.

Or you could just use the method I posted above "ping x.x.x.x so x.x.x.x" where the first IP is your destination and the second IP is your source.

JacobGates wrote: »

Oh my god.... I feel so stupid right now. When Magic Johnson said to check Router E I typed 'show running-config' and as I was just skimming it I realized I accidently put 192.168.6.3 on the serial interface of Router E which is supposed to be 192.168.6.5. So I fixed it and now it's working like it should. Thank you all for trying to help me. In the end it was me making a stupid mistake.

Hey the only mistakes that are stupid are ones we don't learn from!

In fact, if you don't make mistakes you don't learn, honestly the amount of times I've missed something or misconfigured or even as you put in a number wrong, it GREATLY enhances your troubleshooting skills.

devils_haircut wrote: »

Sorry, I should have been more clear. You want your protocol to be IP. When it asks if you want to use Extended Options, then you would answer "y" for yes.

Or you could just use the method I posted above "ping x.x.x.x so x.x.x.x" where the first IP is your destination and the second IP is your source.

Oh okay, yes, that worked. Thank you! that's really cool. I didn't know that command was so expandable.

Magic Johnson wrote: »

Hey the only mistakes that are stupid are ones we don't learn from!

In fact, if you don't make mistakes you don't learn, honestly the amount of times I've missed something or misconfigured or even as you put in a number wrong, it GREATLY enhances your troubleshooting skills.

Some very wise words there. I have definitely learned from that! Still feel really silly. I guess that is how we motivate ourselves not to do that again.

JacobGates wrote: »

Oh my god.... I feel so stupid right now. When Magic Johnson said to check Router E I typed 'show running-config' and as I was just skimming it I realized I accidently put 192.168.6.3 on the serial interface of Router E which is supposed to be 192.168.6.5. So I fixed it and now it's working like it should. Thank you all for trying to help me. In the end it was me making a stupid mistake.

I don't think that you should just be satisfied with that solution. Reading the running config is not a reliable troubleshooting method, and you should have detected the nature of the error directly on Router C. I would recreate the error and then approach it more systematically from the point where you don't have the two routes that you expect in the routing table. What show commands would be appropriate to use and what conclusions can be drawn from those, etc.

fredrikjj wrote: »

I don't think that you should just be satisfied with that solution. Reading the running config is not a reliable troubleshooting method, and you should have detected the nature of the error directly on Router C. I would recreate the error and then approach it more systematically from the point where you don't have the two routes that you expect in the routing table. What show commands would be appropriate to use and what conclusions can be drawn from those, etc.

This is true. 'show ip protocols' would have been a better command as it shows you almost the complete configuration of the routing protocol. Or show ip eigrp interfaces. Your serial interface on Router E wouldn't have been listed.