I have a network, rather large which is at present utilising static routes, and they are mow moving to EIGRP. The main problem is that within the core Routers (3 of them in 3 different geographical locations) the IP addressing scheme isn't contingent. I'm worried with EIGRP that the route tables will get unduly large.
Below is an example of the network topology10.1.0.0/16 10.11.0.0/16 10.200.0.0/16 --------R1--10.254.254.1/30---R2------10.254.254.5/30---R3----- 10.66.0.0/16 10.157.0.0/16
This is a subset of the network - basically all locations (approx 20 in all) each have allocated a 10.x.0.0/16 subnet R2 is the central router, and at present the EIGRP commands are as follows:-
Router EIGRP 10 network 10.0.0.0 no auto-summary
First querstion - is it possible to use multiple EIGRP summary commands.
Second question - where links have a /30 network each side as in the example above, and if I were to change EIGRP to explicit network statements for each subnet behind each router, what routrs need to know about the serial link's /30 network. For example,taking R1
Router EIGRP 10 network 10.1.0.0 0.0.255.255 network 10.200.0.0 0.0.255.255
Do I also need to add to this NETwork 10.254.254.0 0.0.0.255
Does also a similar scenario hold true for R3
How would one configure EIGRP for a network such as above to ensure its stability. Unfortunately readdressing the whole network to ensure continguous IP addressing is not an option at present.
Many thanks in advance for any help or info.