eigrp set next hop

Andrey Khomyakov khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 02:57:39 UTC 2011

The goal is to withdraw the prefixes should any part of the connection go
Unfortunately  router1--router2--firewall is part of a production setup and
not easily changed. The idea is really to have something like this (ideally
without router2):

    |                             |

I just wanted to check if I'm missing some knowledge about redistributing
BGP into EIGRP. It appears that there is really no way to manipulate
next-hop value. (no ip next-hop-self eigrp 1 is not really an option because
there are many more prefixes coming from other routers that are being
redistributed to router2 from router1)

I will see if the network will allow BGP on router2. That seems to be the
only clean solution for this.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:25 PM, David Swafford <david at davidswafford.com>wrote:

> What's the real goal behind this?  What your describing sounds like a
> horrible band-aid....
> David.
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Andrey Khomyakov <
> khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi nanog
>> I need to advertise EIGRP route with a different next-hop value than self
>> Due to how the connections are setup, I have to run BGP between two peers
>> that are 3 hops away from each other.
>> router1--router2--firewall--router3
>> I'm running EBGP between router1 and router3
>> router1 is redistributing into EIGRP that's running with router2
>> The problem is that now router2 thinks that router3 routes are reachable
>> via
>> router1 so I have myself a route loop.
>> Is there a way to advertise an EIGRP route with next hop of router3 (or
>> firewall for that matter) rather than router1 which is what EIGRP does by
>> default
>> Thank you in advance for advice.
>> --
>> Andrey Khomyakov
>> [khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com]

Andrey Khomyakov
[khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com]

More information about the NANOG mailing list