Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Step 3. Choosing Routes: Once an EIGRP router�s topology table is populated, the
EIGRP process examines all learned network routes and selects the best route to
each network. EIGRP considers a network route with the lowest metric to be the best
route to that network.
As you read the following discussion detailing EIGRP neighbor discovery, topology
exchange, and route selection, please keep in mind that unlike OSPF, EIGRP has no
concept of a Designated Router (DR) or Backup Designated Router (BDR), which you
might have learned about in your CCNA R/S studies.
To better visualize how an EIGRP router discovers its neighbors and exchanges
topology information with those neighbors, consider the figure below.
Step 1. Router R1 wants to see if there are any EIGRP-speaking routers off of its
Gig 0/1 interface with which it might possibly form a neighborship (also known as
an adjacency). So, it multicasts an EIGRP Hello message to the well-known EIGRP
multicast address of 224.0.0.10 asking for any EIGRP-speaking routers to identify
themselves.
Step 2. Upon receipt of router R1�s Hello message, router R2 sends a unicast Update
message back to router R1�s IP address of 10.1.1.1. This Update message contains
router R2�s full EIGRP topology table.
Step 3. Router R1 receives router R2�s Update and responds with an Acknowledgement
(ACK) unicast message sent to router R2�s IP address of 10.1.1.2.
Step 4. The process then repeats itself with the roles reversed. Specifically,
router R2 sends a Hello message to the EIGRP multicast address of 224.0.0.10.
Step 5. Router R1 responds to router R2�s Hello message with a unicast Update
containing router R1�s full EIGRP topology table. This Update message is destined
for router R2�s IP address of 10.1.1.2.
Step 6. Router R2 receives router R1�s routing information and responds with an ACK
unicast message sent to router R1�s IP address of 10.1.1.1.
At this point, an EIGRP neighborship has been established between routers R1 and
R2. The routers will periodically exchange Hello messages, to confirm each router�s
neighbor is still there. However, this is the last time the routers exchange their
full routing information. Subsequent topology changes are advertised via partial
updates, rather than the full updates used during neighbor establishment. Also,
notice that the Update messages during neighbor establishment were sent as unicast
messages. However, future Update messages are sent as multicast messages, destined
for 224.0.0.10. This helps ensure all EIGRP-speaking routers on a segment receive
the Update messages.
EIGRP boasts an advantage over OSPF in the way it sends its Update messages.
Specifically, EIGRP�s Update messages are sent reliably using Reliable Transport
Protocol (RTP). This means that, unlike OSPF, if an Update message is lost in
transit, I will be retransmitted.
NOTE: The acronym RTP also refers to Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), which is
used to transmit voice and video packets.
Route Selection
The routes shown in an EIGRP topology table include metric information, indicating
how �far� it is to a specific destination network. But just how is that metric
calculated? Well, EIGRP�s metric calculation is a bit more involved than with RIP
or OSPF. Specifically, EIGRP�s metric is an integer value based on bandwidth and
delay, by default. Although, its metric calculation can be include other
components. Consider EIGRP�s metric formula:
When EIGRP was originally designed, the MTU was designated as a tie breaker if two
routes had the same metric but different MTU values. In such a situation, the route
with the higher MTU would be selected. So, while an EIGRP Update message does
indeed contain MTU information, that information is not directly used in metric
calculations.
Bandwidth: The bandwidth value used in the EIGRP metric calculation is determined
by dividing 10,000,000 by the bandwidth (in kbps) of the slowest link along the
path to the destination network.
Delay: Unlike bandwidth, which represents the �weakest link,� the delay value is
cumulative. Specifically, it�s the sum of all delays associated with all of the
interfaces that must be exited in order to get to the destination network. The
output of the show interfaces command shows an interface�s delay in microseconds.
However, the value used in EIGRP�s metric calculation is in tens of microseconds.
This means you would add up all of the egress interface delays as seen in the show
interfaces output for each egress interface, and then divide by 10 to get the tens
of microseconds unit of measure.
Reliability: The reliability is a value used in the numerator of a fraction, with
255 as its denominator. The value of the fraction indicates the reliability of a
link. For example, a reliability value of 255 indicates the link is 100 percent
reliable (that is, 255/255 = 1 = 100 percent).
Load: Similar to reliability, load is a value used in the numerator of a fraction,
with 255 as its denominator. The value of the fraction indicates how busy a link
is. For example, a load value of 1 indicates the link is minimally loaded (that is,
1/255 = 0.004 < 1 percent).
MTU: Although it doesn�t appear in EIGRP�s metric formula, an interface�s MTU value
(which defaults to 1500 Bytes) is carried in an EIGRP Update message to be used in
the event of a tie (for example, two routes to a destination network have the same
metric but different MTU values), where the higher MTU value is preferred.
As a memory aid, remember the acrostic Big Dogs Really Like Me. The B in Big can
remind you of the B in Bandwidth. The D in Dogs can remind you of the D in Delay,
and so on. However, by default, EIGRP has most of its K-values set to zero, which
dramatically simplifies the metric calculation to only consider bandwidth and
delay. Specifically, the default K-values are:
K1 = 1
K2 = 0
K3 = 1
K4 = 0
K5 = 0
If we plug these default K-values into the EIGRP metric calculation, the value of
each fraction equals zero, which reduces the formula to:
Suppose we wish to calculate the metric to the 198.51.100.0 /24 network from the
perspective of R1 for a route that goes from R1 to R2 and then out to the
destination network. From the topology, we can determine that we�ll need to exit
two router interfaces to get from router R1 to the 198.51.100.0 /24 network via
router R2. Those two egress interfaces are interface Gig 0/1 on router R1 and
interface Gig 0/3 on router R2. We can determine the bandwidth and delay associated
with each interface by examining the output of the show interfaces commands given
in following example.
From the above example, we determine both egress interfaces have a bandwidth of
1,000,000 kbps (that is, 1 Gbps). Additionally, we see that each egress interface
has a delay of 10 microseconds. The bandwidth value we plug into our EIGRP metric
formula is the bandwidth of the slowest link along the path to the destination
network, as measured in kbps. In our case, both egress interfaces have the same
link speed, meaning that we say our �slowest� link is 1,000,000 kbps.
As a reference, the tale below shows common default values for bandwidth and delay
on a variety of Cisco router interface types.
Our calculated EIGRP metric value is 3072. Now, let�s see if that�s the actual
metric appearing in router R1�s EIGRP topology table. Output from the show ip eigrp
topology command issued on router R1 is shown in the following example.
As predicted, the metric (also known as the feasible distance) from router R1 to
the network of 198.51.100.0 /24 via router R2 is 3072. Recall we used default K-
values in this example, which is also common practice in the real world. However,
for design purposes, we might want to manipulate the K-values. For example, if
we�re concerned about the reliability of a link or the load we might experience on
a link, we could manipulate our K-values in such a way that EIGRP would start
considering reliability and/or load in its metric calculation. Let�s next consider
how we can change those default K-values.
Setting K-values
As an example, imagine that in our design, we�re concerned that the load on our
links might be high at times, and we want EIGRP to consider a link�s level of
saturation when calculating a best path. By examining the full EIGRP metric
calculation formula, we notice that having a non-zero value for K2 will cause EIGRP
to consider load. Therefore, we decide to set K2 to 1, in addition to K1 and K3,
which are already set to a 1 by default. The other K-values of K4 and K5 will
remain at 0. The example below demonstrates how we could configure such a set of K-
values.
Setting K-values
The first 0 in the metric weights 0 1 1 1 0 0 command seen in the above example
specifies a TOS value of 0. The following five numbers set our five K-values: K1 =
1, K2 = 1, K3 = 1, K4 = 0, K5 = 0. This collection of K-values will now consider
not just bandwidth and delay, but also load when performing a metric calculation.
However, we have an issue. Notice the console messages appearing after our
configuration. Both of our neighborships have been torn down, because router R1 now
has different K-values than routers R2 and R3. Recall that EIGRP neighbors must
have matching K-values, meaning that if you change the K-values on one EIGRP-
speaking router, you need an identical set of K-values on each of its EIGRP
neighbors. Once you configure matching K-values on those neighbors, then each of
their neighbors need matching K-values. As you can see, in a large topology, there
could be a significant administrative burden associated with K-value manipulation.
One reason EIGRP rapidly converges in the event of a route failure is EIGRP often
has a backup route standing by to take over if the primary route goes down. To make
sure the backup route is not dependent on the primary route, EIGRP thoroughly vets
the backup route by making sure it meets EIGRP�s feasibility condition.
Specifically, the feasibility condition states:
An EIGRP route is a feasible successor route if its reported distance (RD) from our
neighbor is less than the feasible distance (FD) of the successor route.
For example, consider the topology shown in the following figure and the
corresponding configuration given the example below. Notice the 10.1.1.8 /30
network (between routers R2 and R3) is reachable from R1 via R2 or via R3. If
router R1 uses the route via R2, it crosses a 1 Gbps link to reach the destination
network. However, the route via R3 causes traffic to cross a slower 100 Mbps link.
Since EIGRP considers bandwidth and delay by default, we can determine through
observation that the preferred route is via router R2. However, what if the link
between routers R1 and R2 goes down? Is there a feasible successor route that can
almost immediately take over? Again, through observation, we might conclude that
router R1 would use the feasible successor route via router R3. However, before we
jump to that conclusion, we should confirm that the path via R3 meets the
feasibility condition.
Just by virtue of the fact that the route via router R3 (that is, via 10.1.1.6)
appears in the output of the show ip eigrp topology command issued on router R1, we
can conclude that the path via R3 is indeed a feasible successor route. However,
let�s examine the output a bit more closely to determine why it�s a feasible
successor route.
First, consider the entry from the output in the above example identifying the
successor route (that is, the preferred route):
Next, consider the entry for the feasible successor route from the above example:
To reinforce this important concept just a bit more, consider the topology shown
below. The EIGRP process on router R1 has learned three paths to reach the 10.1.1.0
/24 network. However, EIGRP next needs to determine which of those paths is the
successor route, which (if any) of the paths are feasible successor routes, and
which (if any) of the paths are neither a successor nor a feasible successor route.
The results of EIGRP�s calculations are provided in the table below.
Router R1 then examines the results of these calculations and determines that the
shortest distance to the 10.1.1.0 /24 network is via router R2, because the path
via R2 has the lowest FD (of 16,000). This path determined to have the shortest
distance is deemed the successor route. Router R1 then attempts to determine if
either of the other routes meet EIGRP�s feasibility condition. Specifically, router
R1 checks to see of the RD from routers R3 or R4 is less than the FD of the
successor route. In the case of R3, its RD of 11,000 is indeed less than the FD of
the successor route (which is 16,000). Therefore, the path to the 10.1.1.0 /24
network via R3 qualifies as a feasible successor route. However, the route via R4
does not qualify, because R4�s RD of 18,000 is greater than 16,000 (the the FD of
the successor route). As a result, the path to the 10.1.1.0 /24 network via router
R4 is not considered to be a feasible successor route.
By the way, you can watch me teach EIGRP as part of the curriculum in the following
video courses: