Home > EIGRP & OSPF Questions

EIGRP & OSPF Questions

March 16th, 2020 in ENCOR 350-401 Go to comments

Question 1

Explanation

The following different OSPF types are compatible with each other:

+ Broadcast and Non-Broadcast (adjust hello/dead timers)
+ Point-to-Point and Point-to-Multipoint (adjust hello/dead timers)

Broadcast and Non-Broadcast networks elect DR/BDR so they are compatible. Point-to-point/multipoint do not elect DR/BDR so they are compatible.

Question 2

Explanation

On Ethernet interfaces the OSPF hello intervl is 10 second by default so in this case there would be a Hello interval mismatch -> the OSPF adjacency would not be established.

Question 3

Explanation

This combination of commands is known as “Conditional debug” and will filter the debug output based on your conditions. Each condition added, will behave like an ‘And’ operator in Boolean logic. Some examples of the “debug ip ospf hello” are shown below:

*Oct 12 14:03:32.595: OSPF: Send hello to 224.0.0.5 area 0 on FastEthernet1/0 from 192.168.12.2
*Oct 12 14:03:33.227: OSPF: Rcv hello from 1.1.1.1 area 0 on FastEthernet1/0 from 192.168.12.1
*Oct 12 14:03:33.227: OSPF: Mismatched hello parameters from 192.168.12.1

Question 4

Explanation

If we configured an EIGRP stub router so that it only advertises connected and summary routes. But we also want to have an exception to this rule then we can configure a leak-map. For example:

R4(config-if)#router eigrp 1
R4(config-router)#eigrp stub
R4(config)#ip access-list standard R4_L0opback0
R4(config-std-nacl)#permit host 4.4.4.4
R4(config)#route-map R4_L0opback0_LEAKMAP
R4(config-route-map)#match ip address R4_L0opback0
R4(config)#router eigrp 1
R4(config-router)#eigrp stub leak-map R4_L0opback0_LEAKMAP

As we can see the leak-map feature goes long with ‘eigrp stub’ command.

Question 5

Explanation

EIGRP provides a mechanism to load balance over unequal cost paths (or called unequal cost load balancing) through the “variance” command. In other words, EIGRP will install all paths with metric < variance * best_metric into the local routing table, provided that it meets the feasibility condition to prevent routing loop. The path that meets this requirement is called a feasible successor. If a path is not a feasible successor, it is not used in load balancing.

Note: The feasibility condition states that, the Advertised Distance (AD) of a route must be lower than the feasible distance of the current successor route.

Question 6

Explanation

The EIGRP Over the Top solution can be used to ensure connectivity between disparate EIGRP sites. This feature uses EIGRP on the control plane and Locator ID Separation Protocol (LISP) encapsulation on the data plane to route traffic across the underlying WAN architecture. EIGRP is used to distribute routes between customer edge (CE) devices within the network, and the traffic forwarded across the WAN architecture is LISP encapsulated.

EIGRP OTP only uses LISP for the data plane, EIGRP is still used for the control plane. Therefore we cannot say OTP uses LISP encapsulation for dynamic multipoint tunneling as this requires encapsulating both data and control plane traffic -> Answer A is not correct.

In OTP, EIGRP serves as the replacement for LISP control plane protocols (therefore EIGRP will learn the next hop, not LISP -> Answer D is not correct). Instead of doing dynamic EID-to-RLOC mappings in native LISP-mapping services, EIGRP routers running OTP over a service provider cloud create targeted sessions, use the IP addresses provided by the service provider as RLOCs, and exchange routes as EIDs. Let’s take an example:

EIGRP_Over_the_Top.jpg

If R1 and R2 ran OTP to each other, R1 would learn about the network 10.0.2.0/24 from R2 through EIGRP, treat the prefix 10.0.2.0/24 as an EID prefix, and take the advertising next hop 198.51.100.62 as the RLOC for this EID prefix. Similarly, R2 would learn from R1 about the network 10.0.1.0/24 through EIGRP, treat the prefix 10.0.1.0/24 as an EID prefix, and take the advertising next hop 192.0.2.31 as the RLOC for this EID prefix. On both routers, this information would be used to populate the LISP mapping tables. Whenever a packet from 10.0.1.0/24 to 10.0.2.0/24 would arrive at R1, it would use its LISP mapping tables just like in ordinary LISP to discover that the packet has to be LISP encapsulated and tunneled toward 198.51.100.62, and vice versa. The LISP data plane is reused in OTP and does not change; however, the native LISP mapping and resolving mechanisms are replaced by EIGRP.

Reference: CCIE Routing and Switching V5.0 Official Cert Guide, Volume 1, Fifth Edition

Question 7

Explanation

When OSPF adjacency is formed, a router goes through several state changes before it becomes fully adjacent with its neighbor. The states are Down -> Attempt (optional) -> Init -> 2-Way -> Exstart -> Exchange -> Loading -> Full. Short descriptions about these states are listed below:

Down: no information (hellos) has been received from this neighbor.

Attempt: only valid for manually configured neighbors in an NBMA environment. In Attempt state, the router sends unicast hello packets every poll interval to the neighbor, from which hellos have not been received within the dead interval.

Init: specifies that the router has received a hello packet from its neighbor, but the receiving router’s ID was not included in the hello packet
2-Way: indicates bi-directional communication has been established between two routers.

Exstart: Once the DR and BDR are elected, the actual process of exchanging link state information can start between the routers and their DR and BDR.

Exchange: OSPF routers exchange database descriptor (DBD) packets

Loading: In this state, the actual exchange of link state information occurs

Full: routers are fully adjacent with each other

(Reference: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080093f0e.shtml)

Neighbors Stuck in Exstart/Exchange State
The problem occurs most frequently when attempting to run OSPF between a Cisco router and another vendor’s router. The problem occurs when the maximum transmission unit (MTU) settings for neighboring router interfaces don’t match. If the router with the higher MTU sends a packet larger that the MTU set on the neighboring router, the neighboring router ignores the packet.

Question 8

Explanation

EIGRP support unequal-cost load balancing via the “variance …” while OSPF only supports equal-cost load balancing.

Question 9

Explanation

The Broadcast network type is the default for an OSPF enabled ethernet interface (while Point-to-Point is the default OSPF network type for Serial interface with HDLC and PPP encapsulation).

Reference: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/cisco-ios-cookbook/0596527225/ch08s15.html

Question 10

Explanation

Summary ASBR LSA (Type 4) – Generated by the ABR to describe an ASBR to routers in other areas so that routers in other areas know how to get to external routes through that ASBR. For example, suppose R8 is redistributing external route (EIGRP, RIP…) to R3. This makes R3 an Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR). When R2 (which is an ABR) receives this LSA Type 1 update, R2 will create LSA Type 4 and flood into Area 0 to inform them how to reach R3. When R5 receives this LSA it also floods into Area 2.

In the above example, the only ASBR belongs to area 1 so the two ABRs (R2 & R5) send LSA Type 4 to area 0 & area 2 (not vice versa). This is an indication of the existence of the ASBR in area 1.

OSPF_LSAs_Types_4.jpg

Note:
+ Type 4 LSAs contain the router ID of the ASBR.
+ There are no LSA Type 4 injected into Area 1 because every router inside area 1 knows how to reach R3. R3 only uses LSA Type 1 to inform R2 about R8 and inform R2 that R3 is an ASBR.

Comments
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.