DMVPN + found EIGRP neighbor

Similar Questions

• DMVPN - EIGRP Neighbors

  Hello

  I run a solution DMVPN mode double hub. I use EIGRP as Protocol routing between the hub and the spokes.

  I know that the gre is pain most of the time, but we have to live with that. Although I had neighbors talk about EIGRP

  stable for 8-9 weeks and other drop all the few weeks that I realized 2 days all EIGRP neighbors dropped simultaneously

  in the two centres.

  On each RADIUS, I run a phase commune 1 for the VPN, but different phase 2 of people who know well the DMVPN th know what I mean.

  HUBs located in different areas and it was not issue of bandwidth to assign the two hubs at the same time. Its really something

  with protocols that use the DMVPN or EIGRP.

  I saw DMVPN drops I saw only the EIGRP neighborship declined for all rays in both same time centers. Any suggestions

  Why EIGRP failed?

  It could be something with PNDH or an IOS bug;

  iOS c800-universalk9 - mz.spa.153 - 3.m.bin

  Please don't ask me basic troubleshooting, connectivity or timers. I'm looking for an advanced suggestion I have solved many problems DMVPN

  which cisco even could not find.

  I am looking forward to good suggestion and thank you for taking the time to consider the issue.

  Kind regards

  Spyros

  Hello

  «Do not forget that it is a design talk to speak.» Talk about communication talk goes staright away. DMVPN creates a dynamic tunnel between them and does not have the traffic via the HUB. »

  I think I disagree with you here cordially with these instructions next hop and split horizon of eigrp on shelves

  Rays set in fact tunnels between them however I'm being understood that the PNDH Rais of first need to query the cache of the PNDH server for the ip address of 'inside' to speak it it wants to connect to check the accessibility of the address of tunnel - I can't see or understand now why this requirement is also necessary on the rays.

  When you say adjacencies eigrp lowered at the same time - we are still not sure, this is due to some partial failure that has been found to ask, but I think for all rollover between hubs eigrp to work they must have potential successors then do these show upward in the topology tables? -Maybe you had a situation where the two hubs became State SIA and dropped?

  One last thing for a DWVPN mesh (talk to speaks) don't is not PKI is necessary and not pre-shared key and you say said cisco iOS has been or use cordially IPSec/gre is buggy what they suggest to make? As in your last post, you say that you sorted.

  RES
  Paul

  Sent by Cisco Support technique iPad App

• authentication of EIGRP neighbors

  I want to know how far behind I me if I configure md5 authentication in my neighbors eigrp. I guess that's not much, but I would like to have the info, if anyone knows I'll apreciate it

  Thank you

  Hello

  There will be no noticeable delay with authentication EIGRP. It will be an MD5 hash in the EIGRP packets and time, cost is the processing time to generate the hash. It is the order of microseconds, and finally development.

  I hope this helps! Please note all messages.

  Regards, Martin

• DMVPN Tunnel and EIGRP routing problem

  I have redundant paths to a remote 2811 router on my network of sites.  The first links is a T1 frame relay connection that has been in place for years, and the new link is on a 54 Mbps fixed wireless that was recently created.

  I'm under EIGRP to my process of routing protocol 100 for the two links.

  I installed a DMVPN Tunnel between the remote 2811 and no. 2851 router on my host site.  The tunnel interface shows to the top and to the top of both sides and I can ping the IP remote tunnel of my networks side host.

  However my eigrp routes are not spread over this new tunnel link and if I run a command show ip eigrp neighbor on each router I show only the neighbor for the frame relay link and not the new wireless link.

  What I'm missing here?

  A tunnel0 to see the shows the following:

  Tunnel0 is up, line protocol is up
  Material is Tunnel
  The Internet address is 10.x.x.x/24
  MTU 1514 bytes, BW 54000 Kbps, DLY 10000 usec,
  reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
  Encapsulation TUNNEL, loopback not set
  KeepAlive not set
  Tunnel source (FastEthernet0/1), destination 172.x.x.x 10.x.x.x
  Tunnel/GRE/IP transport protocol
  Key 0x186A0, sequencing of the people with reduced mobility
  Disabled packages parity check
  TTL 255 tunnel
  Quick tunneling enabled
  Tunnel of transmission bandwidth 8000 (Kbps)
  Tunnel to receive 8000 (Kbps) bandwidth
  Tunnel of protection through IPSec (profile "CiscoCP_Profile1")
  Last entry of 00:00:01, exit ever, blocking of output never
  Final cleaning of "show interface" counters never
  Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/dumps); Total output drops: 947
  Strategy of queues: fifo
  Output queue: 0/0 (size/max)
  5 minute input rate 0 bps, 0 packets/s
  5 minute output rate 0 bps, 0 packets/s
  packages of 880, 63000 bytes, 0 no buffer entry
  Received 0 broadcasts, 0 Runts, 0 Giants 0 shifters
  errors entry 0, 0 CRC, overgrown plot of 0, 0, 0 ignored, 0 abort
  output of 910 packages, 81315 bytes, 0 underruns
  0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 resets interface
  unknown protocol 0 drops
  output buffer, the output buffers 0 permuted 0 failures

  Please go ahead and add a static route on the hub, so it goes through the wireless link and let me know if everything works correctly.

  Federico.

• Study on authentication of neighboring router EIGRP

  Hello

  I'm studying for my OFFICE. There is an area called "the EIGRP neighbor router authentication." Because it's safer and I don't have rear security on the ground, find it me difficult to understand all thoe MD5, key, key ring, key etc. chain.

  Can someone please recommend me a note for me to read and understand what these things are, how they really work etc?

  Thanks in advance!

  Hi, a very good link to CCO for your purpose is:

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/products/SW/iosswrel/ps1828/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca60f.html

  Kind regards.

  Hope this helps, so pls if rate post

• EIGRP: Package ourselves ignored

  I did a debug eigrp neighbors, and I got the message "EIGRP: package ourselves ignored" every 5 seconds. I found that I could get rid of it through the passive loopback interface. So is this just cosmetic, or is it considered good practice to make passive loopback interfaces? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

  Kevin Dorrell

  Luxembourg

  Kevin

  I see only one single factor that could be a con to passive looping with EIGRP. If you make the passive interface it does not appear when you show ip eigrp interface. (and if it's really a con will depend on your point of view) I see several factors pro. If the closure is not passive, EIGRP will build and try to send (or perhaps based on your results I should say sends) a Hello packet to itself and are preparing to attempt to build a contiguity. Of course the adjacency will never do. So if you're passive looping you will gain a number of overhead.

  If you include a network for looping statement, but liabilities of closure it is always announced that according to me is the main reason to enroll him in EIGRP. If we get the main advantage and can save some overhead so I guess maybe it's bordered on being a best practice. (Although I must admit that most of the configs I do not have passive looping. "So I do not believe very strongly in this subject being recommended.)

  HTH

  Rick

• Nearby EIGRP falls on GRE tunnel

  I have several users working at home with a router 871 a 2811 access in our offices. While most of these connections works without any problem, I have a few sites that continue to drop the EIGRP neighbor. Here is a sample of the log file

  * Dec 17 06:32:48: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is on the rise: new adjacency

  * Dec 17 06:41:58: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is falling: Farewell Interface received

  * Dec 17 06:42:03: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is on the rise: new adjacency

  * Dec 17 06:43:41: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is falling: Farewell Interface received

  * Dec 17 06:43:46: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is on the rise: new adjacency

  * Dec 17 06:49:30: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is falling: Farewell Interface received

  * Dec 17 06:49:33: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 10 IP-EIGRP (0): neighbor 172.29.1.49 (Tunnel1) is on the rise: new adjacency

  Does anyone have any ideas as to what may cause this problem?

  Rick

  Run us EIGRP GRE/IPSec tunnels to many remote routers. We have seen this problem of instability of EIGRP neighbor, more in some areas and less in others. Often one side removes the neighbor relationship and sends a 'goodby' neighbor. I guess it must if with packet loss drop some of the EIGRP Hello messages. We found that, by increasing the EIGRP timers, we reduced the frequency with which we see the problem (we use 15 and 45 rather than the value default 5 and 15).

  HTH

  Rick

• DMVPN WILL ACCESS LIST

  Hi, guys

  Could you please help me with this matter?

  When you configure the DMVPN talk-to-spoke with several hubs (GRE IPSEC EIGRP) talked about what traffic should be allowed on the external physical interface on a router?

  !

  IP access-list еxtended CRYPTO-ONLY

  license to esp [IPSEC peers Reomote] [IPSEC peer Local]

  permit of eq isakmp udp [IPSEC peers Reomote] [IPSEC peer Local]

  allow accord [IPSEC peers Reomote] [IPSEC peer Local]

  !

  interface FastEthernet

  IP access-group CRYPTO ONLY in

  !

  If I delete the last line of the access list, where the "free WILL" is permitted, the router never built EIGRP neighbor relationships. If this line should be present? If so, does any not encrypted GRE traffic will come out?

  Thanks in advance,

  Mladen

  Hey Mladen,

  The access list bound to the external interface is checked twice IE before and after decryption. This is why you must allow packets will clear also.

  HTH

  Sangaré

  pls rate helpful messages

• Mutual redistribution between EIGRP and BGP and match statements

  Hello Experts

  I'm working on a problem of mutual redistribution between EIGRP and BGP

  The idea is a beacon (210) on traffic from our LAN on R2 - 2 so that it can be put in correspondence and denied the R3-7. The goal is to prevent routing loops.

  The routes are redistributed in R1 - 1, but I am not able to see if the roads are being marked.

  Can someone let me know how to check the roads are being filtered with course maps?

  TBH, I don't think the market at all.

  I have attached the configs and view orders.

  I read somewhere the problem was with match type internal route command, but I don't know if this is the problem

  Any help will be greatly appreciated.

  Topology and configs are attached.

  See you soon

  Hello

  You have 2 points:

  1. Deny the redistribution of EIGRP routes tag in BGP: you already have with your route map
  2. You must filter the roads scholar eigrp on R5 to them are not propagated in R2. I'll use a roadmap for the tag and the EIGRP neighbor. The configuration looks like:

  IP access-list standard FROM_R4
  license to host 192.168.1.2
  !
  !
  EIGRP-TAG route map deny 10
  ! subnets from R4 with tag 210
  match ip route-source FROM_SLDC
  game tag 210
  EIGRP-TAG allowed 20 route map
  !
  Router eigrp 65100
  ! Filtering of marked routes
  route map EIGRP-distribute-list tag in
  !

  Currently, you are missing a piece to import these networks R5.

  Thank you

  PS: Please do not forget to rate and score as correct answer if this answered your question

• DMVPN versus MPLS

  Hello world

  An interesting question for the community.

  If a router is configured with a DMVPN (or simply a VPN) tunnel and at the same time has an ethernet MPLS even remote desktop connection which route is a priority and why?

  Thank you

  Tom

  Hello

  the link I provided above described the idea how this is possible, if you are looking for the MPLS cloud and cloud DMVPN using EIGRP, then I suggest you do the following

  in each router configure two EIGRP (AS) autonomous systems to be used on MPLS and the other to be used on DMVPN and follow the recommendations below

  -to advertise networks in each AS EIGRP that should be available through (assuming that the same networks will be announced on both)

  -do not redistribute between these two EIGRP AS

  -use EIGRP offset-list of roads through the DMVPN tunnel interface make which the metric is higher and less preferred see below link to eigrp offset-list configuration

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/Tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a00800c2d96.shtml#modifycompositemetric

  -You can use other methods other than delay llike ofset-list

  for the other config design and recommendations please refer to the example of design in the previous post

  If have any question just after her here

  HTH

  pls note the useful messages

• More small Cisco 800 series + DMVPN?

  Hello

  Recently I looked into the possibilities to extend a DMVPN (already implemented) with very remote of small (1-2 user) on a single link to the ISP.

  I would use what is essentially the smallest Cisco router supporting DMVPN and EIGRP (heel) - here is an example configuration:

  Tunnel interface *.

  bandwidth *.

  IP address

  IP - eigrp hold time *.

  authentication of property intellectual PNDH *.

  map of the PNDH IP * *.

  multicast IP PNDH card *.

  network IP PNDH ID *.

  Holdtime PNDH IP *.

  property intellectual PNDH nhs *.

  property intellectual PNDH registration timeout *.

  tunnel source *.

  multipoint gre tunnel mode

  tunnel key *.

  tunnel path-mtu-discovery

  Ipsec-tunnel protection profile *.

  All this accompanied by the overall policy and isakmp transform appropriate.

  I know that the 881 can accomplish the above without problem (if it has IP Adv licenses Services).

  I would like to know if I can use the small routers (physically smaller, that is) for a similar configuration. Can anyone provide an overview here? Pouvez router Cisco 819 (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps10906/ps380/ps11615/data_sheet_c78-678459.html)

  provides the same functionality? What the 866VAE router (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps380/data_sheet_c78-693249.html)?

  819 does support both DMVPN and EIGRP.

  866VAE does not support the DMVPN.

• STP traffic flow

  All,

  Got a facility below I'm looking for confirmation his works, your entries please

  SW1 - core <------------------- trunk="" -----------="" -----------------="">core sw2

  !                                                                                                          !

  !                                                                                                            !

  !                                                                                                             !

  Distribution L3 switch1 - not back to back connection - Distribution L3 switch2

  !                                                               !

  trunk                                                trunk

  !                                                              !

  access layer switch sw1 - connection to distribution switches trunk

  (1) I have (SW1 and SW2) basic switches connected to distribution switches (SW1 and SW2 L3 Distribution) the port configured with trunk and L3 interface vlan 40, the vlan 40 forming EIGRP neighbor ship with distribution, so ports switches using L2 and L3. also HSRP vlan 40 configured assets (sw1) standby time (sw2)

  (2) distribution switches - connected to basic with chest & int switches vlan 40 forming EIGRP neighbor ship with two basic switches - no VLANs hsrp 40 configured on the distribution switches

  (4) access layer switch - connected to the distribution and L2 switches vlan trunk 40 allowed. the gateway to this switch is now based on the HSRP active switches vlan 40 FT

  (5) to access switch the connected port Distribution sw1 - State PLEASE FWD, the other port in State BLK

  I would like to check with you, if connection made closed between the access to the distribution of switch 1 switch, STP removes the second port of State BLK and put in forwarding State &

  traffic will hit the sw2 basis and reach the gateway IP active HSRP to Core sw1

  I would say that he must work very well as long as the path EIGRP cost is in line with your bridge ID switch to designated paths. If you are under equal-cost path and default bridge ID, it can cause some strange paths by default so I think it is your primary consideration.

• The GRE Tunnel descends?

  So here's my setup:

  Internal router (2821) > Cluster internal DMZ ASA > router DMZ (2821) > external DMZ Checkpoint Cluster > Branch Office router (877)

  Internal Cluster ASA a configured PAT production internal then all the VLANS.

  The router in the DMZ has an interior interface configured on the internal DMZ and an external interface configured on the external DMZ. The DMZ router has two interfaces configured loopback.

  The external control point is configured with NAT for the incoming and outgoing traffic.

  The branch is a DSL router with a static IP address.

  The first requirement is to configure a GRE IPSec tunnel between the DMZ router and the branch office router.

  The second condition is to configure a GRE IPSec tunnel between the internal router and the router in the DMZ.

  The third requirement is to allow routing between the internal router and the branch through the router in the DMZ, because it is ultimately the connection between the head office and branch of live backup.

  I configured a Contract by the IPSec Tunnel between the router in the DMZ and routers of Management Office successfully.

  I can also set up a GRE Tunnel (without IPSec) between the internal router and the router in the DMZ.

  However, whenever the GRE Tunnel establishes between internal and DMZ routers and a neighbouring forms EIGRP, EIGRP neighborhood between the router in the DMZ and the branch drops! See following the DMZ router log file:

  1 = to branch tunnel

  Tunnel of 100 = internal

  002885:. 3 Mar 22:32:57.013: % LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel1, changed State to
  002886:. 3 Mar 22:33:06.029: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: IPv4 EIGRP 1: neighbor 172.17.205.61 (Tunnel1) is on the rise: new adjacency
  002889:. 3 Mar 22:33:58.434: % LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Tunnel100, changed State to
  002890.: 3 Mar 22:33:58.438: % LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel100, changed State to
  002891:. 3 Mar 22:34:15.370: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: IPv4 EIGRP 1: neighbor 192.168.5.66 (Tunnel100) is on the rise: new adjacency
  002892:. 22:34:30.551 3 Mar: % DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: 1 IPv4 EIGRP: neighbour 172.17.205.61 (Tunnel1) is falling: expiry of hold time
  002893:. 3 Mar 22:34:47.015: % LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel1, state change downstairs

  The IPSec tunnel, for the branch remains in place throughout.

  Can anyone help!?

  The problem was that whenever the GRE Tunnel established between internal and DMZ routers and a forms of EIGRP neighbor branch was learning the next hop to the destination of tunnel from a different device.

  This is how the branch was to learn the route to the tunnel destination:

  Tunnel1 interface

  Tandragee Sub Station router VPN Tunnel description

  bandwidth 64

  IP 172.17.205.62 255.255.255.252

  no ip-cache cef route

  delay of 20000

  KeepAlive 10 3

  source of tunnel Loopback1

  tunnel destination 172.17.255.23

  be-idz-vpn-01 #sh ip route 172.17.255.23

  Routing for 172.17.255.23/32 entry

  Through the 'static', the metric distance 1 0 known

  Routing descriptor blocks:

  * 172.17.252.129

  Path metric is 0, number of shares of traffic 1

  be-idz-vpn-01 #sh ip route 172.17.252.129

  Routing for 172.17.252.128/25 entry

  Known via 'connected', distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via the interface)

  Routing descriptor blocks:

  * directly connected by GigabitEthernet0/1

  Path metric is 0, number of shares of traffic 1

  be-idz-vpn-01 #.

  This is how the next hop as learned GRE Tunnel between internal and DMZ routers

  be-idz-vpn-01 #sh ip route 172.17.252.129

  Routing for 172.17.252.128/27 entry

  By the intermediary of "eigrp 1", the known distance 170, metric 40258816, type external

  Redistribution via eigrp 1

  Last updated on Tunnel100 192.168.5.66, ago 00:07:25

  Routing descriptor blocks:

  * 192.168.5.66, 192.168.5.66, there is, through Tunnel100 00:07:25

  Path metric is 40258816, 1/number of shares of traffic is

  Time total is 10110 microseconds, minimum bandwidth 64 Kbps

  Reliability 255/255, MTU minimum 1476 bytes

  Loading 1/255, 2 hops

  We can see how the next hop to the destination of tunnel 172.17.255.23 changed from known via 'connected' via GigabitEthernet0/1 known via "eigrp 1" through Tunnel100.

  This case causes the Tunnel 1 drops.

  The reason for this behavior was because the road to reach the next hop was acquired with a longest match through tunnel interface so that he won the race to the routing table.

  The solution we applied:

  Created a list of distribution on the branch office router in order to remove this specific route Tunnel 100 updates.

  Router eigrp 1

  distribute-list 1

  Network 10.10.10.0 0.0.0.3

  network 172.17.203.56 0.0.0.3

  network 172.17.203.60 0.0.0.3

  network 172.17.205.60 0.0.0.3

  network 172.19.98.18 0.0.0.0

  network 192.168.5.64 0.0.0.3

  passive-interface Loopback1

  be-idz-vpn-01 #sh access-list 1

  IP access list standard 1

  10 deny 172.17.252.128, wildcard bits 0.0.0.127 (1 match)

  20 permit (1230 matches)

  be-idz-vpn-01 #.

  Once this has been applied, we could have the GRE Tunnel established between internal and DMZ routers with the tunneld ACCORD between the branch and the router in the DMZ.

• DMVPN BGP and EIGRP

  I am in the initial phase of research DMVPN.  We currently have an MPLS network running BGP.  Each site has Internet at home as well as a VPN site-to-site is built on the router and talks to an ASA when the SPLM fails.

  I want to implement DMVPN to do away with the site to site VPN and ASA.  I'm going to run EIGRP on routers to connect DMVPN.  Are there any good whitepapers on BGP as the main path and by EIGRP on the DMVPN as a backup?  Or no focus on a general config?

  Thank you

  It's really the main issue.

  With your configuration DMVPN roads will be internal EIGRP of an advertisement of 90, so your default DC prefer DMVPN on MPLS, which is exactly what you don't want.

  There are several ways around this as summarizing through DMPVN, redistribution connected on the sites of the branch in EIGRP so roads DMVPN are external as well and then changing measures etc.

  The other alternative I have ever done so it's for your information is really Cisco have what is called a solution IWAN where DMVPN is performed everywhere that is, even through the MPLS network.

  That would solve your problem of external routes internal EIGRP but IWAN vs is much more than just that, even if you do not need necessarily to implement the entire solution at a time.

  I just thought that it should be mentioned, and if you want more information on this I can direct you to the design guide.

  Jon

• With DMVPN EIGRP

  Why it is necessary to increase the bandwidth the tunnel interface when running with DMVPN EIGRP?

  Thank you

  The default value is 9. The value of bandwidth recommend is 1000 or more. Setting the value of bandwidth of at least 1000 is critical if EIGRP is used via the tunnel interface. The higher bandwidth values may be required depending on the number of rays supported by a hub. The bandwidth for the radius parameter doesn't have to match the setting of bandwidth for the DMVPN hub. It is usually easier if all the rays use the same or similar value.

  Francisco