EIGRP - Routing Protocols and Concepts - page 429

Minimum bandwidth is 64 Kbit
Total delay is 40100 microseconds
Reliability is 255/255
Load is 1/255
Minimum MTU is 1500
Hop count is 2

How many successors are there for this network? 1

What is the feasible distance to this network? 3014400

What is the IP address of the feasible successor? 172.16.3.1

What is the reported distance for 192.168.1.0 from the feasible successor? 2172416

What would be the feasible distance to 192.168.1.0 if R1 became the successor? 41026560

Task 12: Disable EIGRP Automatic Summarization

Examine the routing table of the R3 router.

Step 1.

Notice that R3 is not receiving individual routes for the 172.16.1.0/24, 172.16.2.0/24, and
172.16.3.0/24 subnets. Instead, the routing table only has a summary route to the classful
network address of 172.16.0.0/16 through the R1 router. This will cause packets that are
destined for the 172.16.2.0/24 network to be sent through the R1 router instead of being
sent straight to the R2 router:

R3# show ip route

<output omitted>

D 172.16.0.0/16 [90/2172416] via 192.168.10.5, 01:21:54, Serial0/0/0
C 192.168.1.0/24 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
192.168.10.0/24 is variably subnetted, 3 subnets, 2 masks
D 192.168.10.0/24 is a summary, 01:21:47, Null0
C 192.168.10.4/30 is directly connected, Serial0/0/0
C 192.168.10.8/30 is directly connected, Serial0/0/1

Why is the R1 router (192.168.10.5) the only successor for the route to the 172.16.0.0/16
network?

The R1 router has a better metric (feasible distance) to 172.16.0.0/16. The feasible dis-
tance for the path to the R1 router is better because the bandwidth for this path is higher
than the path through the R2 router.

Examine the EIGRP topology table on R3. Step 2.

Notice that the reported distance from R2 is higher than the feasible distance from R1:

R3# show ip eigrp topology
IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS 1

Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
r - Reply status