More Books
Routing TCP IP Volume I CCIE Professional Development
Routing TCP/IP, Volume I (CCIE Professional Development)
Table of Contents
Copyright
About the Author
About the Reviewers
Introduction
Objectives
Audience
Organization
Conventions and Features
Foreword
Part I: Routing Basics
Chapter 1. Basic Concepts: Internetworks, Routers, and Addresses
Bicycles with Motors
Data Link Addresses
Repeaters and Bridges
Routers
Network Addresses
Looking Ahead
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Chapter 2. TCP/IP Review
The TCP/IP Protocol Layers
The IP Packet Header
IP Addresses
ARP
ICMP
The Host-to-Host Layer
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 2 Command Review
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 3. Static Routing
The Route Table
Configuring Static Routes
Troubleshooting Static Routes
Looking Ahead
Summary Table:Chapter 3 Command Review
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 4. Dynamic Routing Protocols
Routing Protocol Basics
Distance Vector Routing Protocols
Link State Routing Protocols
Interior and Exterior Gateway Protocols
Static or Dynamic Routing?
Looking Ahead
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Part II: Interior Routing Protocols
Chapter 5. Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
Operation of RIP
Configuring RIP
Troubleshooting RIP
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 5 Command Review.
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 6. Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP)
Operation of IGRP
Configuring IGRP
Troubleshooting IGRP
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 6 Command Review
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 7. Routing Information Protocol Version 2
Operation of RIPv2
Configuring RIPv2
Troubleshooting RIPv2
Looking Ahead
Summary Table:Chapter 7 Command Review
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 8. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)
Figure 8.1. The four major components of EIGRP. RTP and neighbor discovery are lower-level protocols that enable the correct operation of DUAL. DUAL can perform route computations for multiple routed protocols.
Configuring EIGRP
Troubleshooting EIGRP
Looking Ahead
Summary Table:Chapter 8 Command Review
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 9. Open Shortest Path First
Neighbors and Adjacencies
Configuring OSPF
Troubleshooting OSPF
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 9 Command Review
Recommended Reading
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 10. Integrated IS-IS
Operation of Integrated IS-IS
Configuring Integrated IS-IS
Troubleshooting Integrated IS-IS
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 10 Command Review
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Part III: Route Control and Interoperability
Chapter 11. Route Redistribution
Principles of Redistribution
Configuring Redistribution
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 11 Command Review
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 12. Default Routes and On-Demand Routing
Fundamentals of Default Routes
Fundamentals of On-Demand Routing
Configuring Default Routes and ODR
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 12 Command Review
Review Questions
Chapter 13. Route Filtering
Configuring Route Filters
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 13 Command Review
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 14. Route Maps
Basic Uses of Route Maps
Configuring Route Maps
Looking Ahead
Summary Table: Chapter 14 Command Review
Review Questions
Configuration Exercises
Troubleshooting Exercises
Part IV: Appendixes
Appendix A. Tutorial: Working with Binary and Hex
Working with Binary Numbers
Working with Hexadecimal Numbers
Appendix B. Tutorial: Access Lists
Access List Basics
Standard IP Access Lists
Extended IP Access Lists
Calling the Access List
Keyword Alternatives
Named Access Lists
Filter Placement Considerations
Access List Monitoring and Accounting
Appendix C. CCIE Preparation Tips
Laying the Foundations
Hands-On Experience
Intensifying the Study
The Final Six Months
Exam Day
Appendix D. Answers to Review Questions
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 14
Appendix E. Solutions to Configuration Problems
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Appendix F. Solutions to Troubleshooting Exercises
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Index
index_SYMBOL
index_A
index_B
index_C
index_D
index_E
index_F
index_G
index_H
index_I
index_K
index_L
index_M
index_N
index_O
index_P
index_Q
index_R
index_S
index_T
index_U
index_V
index_W
index_Z
 

Configuring IGRP

Although a few more configuration options are available to IGRP than to RIP, the basic configuration is every bit as simple: The router command is used to establish the routing process, and the networkcommand is used to specify each network on which IGRP is to run. As with RIP, only major network numbers can be specified because IGRP is also a classful protocol.

The commands neighbor, for sending unicast updates, and passive-interface, for preventing updates from being broadcast on selected subnets, were introduced in Chapter 5, "Routing Information Protocol (RIP)." They can be used with IGRP just as with RIP.

Offset-list was also introduced in Chapter 5. When used with IGRP, the offset variable is delay instead of hops.

A significant difference from RIP is that each IGRP has a process ID, which allows multiple processes to be run on the same router.

Case Study: A Basic IGRP Configuration

Only two steps are necessary to configure IGRP:

  1. Enable IGRP with the command router igrp process-id.

  2. Specify each major network on which to run IGRP with the network command.

The process ID is carried in the 16-bit autonomous system field of the update packet. The selection of a process ID is arbitrary—any number between 1 and 65,535 (0 is not allowed) can be used, as long as it is used consistently on all routers that must share information via that particular IGRP process. Figure 6.11 shows a simple internetwork; the configurations for the three routers are as follows:


McCloy(config)#router igrp 10 
McCloy(config-router)#network 192.168.1.0 
McCloy(config-router)#network 192.168.2.0 

Acheson(config)#router igrp 10 
Acheson(config-router)#network 192.168.2.0 
Acheson(config-router)#network 172.16.0.0 

Kennan(config)#router igrp 10 
Kennan(config-router)#network 172.16.0.0 
Kennan(config-router)#network 10.0.0.0
Figure 6.11. IGRP will perform address summarization at these three network boundary routers.

graphics/06fig11.gif

IGRP will perform subnet hiding, or summarization, at network boundaries. In the case of Figure 6.11, all three routers are network boundary routers.

Case Study: Unequal-Cost Load Balancing

Given up to six parallel routes of equal cost,[5] IGRP will do equal-cost load balancing under the same fast/process switching constraints as RIP. Unlike RIP, IGRP can also perform unequal-cost load balancing. An additional serial link has been added between Acheson and Kennan in Figure 6.12, with a configured bandwidth of 256K. The goal is to have Acheson perform unequal-cost load balancing across these two links–spreading the traffic load inversely proportional to the metrics of the link.

[5] The default is four paths. See the case study on setting maximum paths for further details.

Figure 6.12. IGRP can be configured to perform unequal-cost load balancing across links such as the two between Acheson and Kennan.

graphics/06fig12.gif

Examining the route from Acheson's S0 interface to network 10.0.0.0, the minimum bandwidth is 1544K (assuming Kennan's Ethernet interface is using the default 10000K bandwidth). Referring to Table 6.1, DLYIGRP(sum) for the serial interface and the Ethernet interface is 2000 + 100 = 2100. BWIGRP(min) is 107/1544 = 6476, so the composite metric of the route is 6476 + 2100 = 8576.

The minimum bandwidth on the route via Acheson's S1 to 10.0.0.0 is 256K; DLYIGRP(sum) is the same as on the first route. Therefore, the composite metric for this route is 107/256 + 2100 = 41162. Without further configuration, IGRP will simply select the path with the lowest metric cost. Figure 6.13 shows that Acheson is using only the path with a metric of 8576.

Figure 6.13. Acheson is using only the lowest-cost link to network 10.0.0.0. Additional configuration is needed to enable unequal-cost load balancing.

graphics/06fig13.gif

Note

Variance


The variance command is used to determine which routes are feasible for unequal-cost load sharing. Variance defines a multiplier by which a metric may differ, or vary, from the metric of the lowest-cost route. Any route whose metric exceeds the metric of the lowest-cost route, multiplied by the variance, will not be considered a feasible route.

The default variance is one, meaning that the metrics of multiple routes must be equal in order to load balance. Variance must be specified in whole numbers.

The metric of Acheson's route through S1 is 41162/8576 = 4.8 times larger than the metric of the S0 route. So to conduct unequal-cost load balancing over Acheson, the variance at Acheson should be five. The IGRP configuration is:


router igrp 10
 network 172.16.0.0
 network 192.168.2.0
 variance 5

After specifying a variance of five at Acheson, its routing table will include the second, higher cost route (Figure 6.14). The following three conditions must be met for a route to be included in unequal-cost load sharing:

  1. The maximum-paths limit must not be exceeded as a result of adding the route to a load-sharing "group."

  2. The next-hop router must be metrically closer to the destination. That is, its metric for the route must be smaller than the local router's metric. A next-hop router, being closer to the destination, is often referred to as the downstream router.

  3. The metric of the lowest-cost route, when multiplied by the variance, must be greater than the metric of the route to be added.

Figure 6.14. The composite metric of the second path to 10.0.0.0 is 41162, or 4.8 times the metric of the lowest-cost route. IGRP will enter the second path into the routing table if the variance is set to at least five.

graphics/06fig14.gif

The rules concerning per destination versus per packet load sharing, discussed in Chapter 3, "Static Routing," apply here as well. Load sharing is per destination if the packet is fast switched and per packet if process switching is used. Figure 6.15 shows a debug output resulting from 20 ping packets being sent through Acheson; fast switching has been turned off with no ip route-cache, and the router is performing unequal-cost, per packet load balancing. For every five packets sent over the 1544K link (to next hop 172.16.1.2), one packet is sent over the 256K link (to next hop 172.16.2.2). This corresponds to the approximately five-to-one variance of the metrics of these two paths.

Figure 6.15. Per packet load sharing is being performed, with one packet being sent over the high-cost link for every five packets sent over the low-cost link.

graphics/06fig15.gif

If variance is set at one, IGRP enters only the lowest-cost route to a destination into the routing table. In some situations, however—for example, to decrease reconvergence time or aid in troubleshooting—all feasible routes should be entered into the table, even though no load balancing should occur. All packets should use the lowest-cost route and switch to the next-best path only if the primary fails. There is an implicit default command (that is, it exists, but is not observed in the configuration file) of traffic-share balanced. To configure the router to only use the minimum-cost path even when multiple paths are shown in the routing table, change this default to traffic-share min. If there are multiple minimum-cost paths and traffic-share min is configured, IGRP will perform equal-cost load balancing.

Case Study: Setting Maximum Paths

The maximum number of routes over which IGRP can load balance is set with the maximum-paths paths command. Paths may be any number from one to six in IOS 11.0 and later and any number from one to four in earlier versions. The default for all versions is four.

Figure 6.16 shows three parallel paths of varying costs from McCloy to network 172.18.0.0. The network administrator wants to load balance over a maximum of only two of these routes while ensuring that if either of these paths should fail, the third route will replace it.

Figure 6.16. The maximum-paths and variance commands can be used together to configure load balancing over only two of the three links between McCloy and Bohlen. If either link fails, the third will take its place.

graphics/06fig16.gif

The metrics from McCloy are:

  • Via S0: 9765 + (2000 + 100) = 11865

  • Via S1: 19531 + (2000 + 100) = 21631

  • Via S2: 78125 + (2000 + 100) = 80225

The metric of the S2 route is 6.76 times as large as the lowest-cost metric, so the variance is seven. McCloy's IGRP configuration is


router igrp 10
  variance 7
  network 172.20.0.0
  network 192.168.1.0
  network 192.168.2.0
  maximum-paths 2

The variance command ensures that any of the three routes to 172.18.0.0 is feasible; the maximum-pathscommand limits the load-sharing group to only the two best routes. The results of this configuration can be seen in Figure 6.17. The first routing table shows that McCloy was load balancing over the two links with the lowest of the three metrics, S0 and S1. After a failure of the S1 link, the second routing table shows that the router is now load balancing over the S0 and S2 links. In each instance, the router will load balance inversely proportional to the metrics of the two paths.

Figure 6.17. The routing table for McCloy, before and after the failure of one of three links, shows the results of using the variance and maximum-paths commands to configure load sharing to 172.18.0.0.

graphics/06fig17.gif

Case Study: Multiple IGRP Processes

Two new routers, Lovett and Harriman, have been added to the internetwork (Figure 6.18). A decision has been made to create two IGRP autonomous system "domains" in the internetwork with no communications between the two. Figure 6.19 shows the two autonomous systems and the related links for each.

Figure 6.18. Separate routing domains are to be created in this internetwork.

graphics/06fig18.gif

Figure 6.19. The routers Harriman and Acheson will each run multiple IGRP processes to facilitate the creation of separate autonomous systems (AS 10 and AS 15) within this IGP.

graphics/06fig19.gif

The configurations for Bohlen, Lovett, McCloy, and Kennan are straightforward: Bohlen, Lovett, and McCloy will run IGRP 10, and Kennan will run IGRP 15. At Acheson, the configuration will be:


router igrp 10
 network 192.168.2.0
 network 192.168.3.0
!
router igrp 15
 network 172.16.0.0

Each process will run only on the interfaces of the networks specified. At Harriman, both interfaces belong to network 10.0.0.0:


router igrp 10
 passive-interface TokenRing0
 network 10.0.0.0
!
router igrp 15
 passive-interface Serial0
 network 10.0.0.0

Using the passive-interface command prevents IGRP updates from being broadcast on data links where they don't belong.