Thanks to everyone who participated in Contest #2 and to those who shared the link. Here is the solution:
- R1 is not receiving the 172.16.0.64/26 route from R3 because the EIGRP AS on R3 is wrongly configured as “23” and not “123”.
- Also on R3, the K-values have been altered and without both neighbors matching on K-values, an EIGRP adjacency will not form.
- Finally, R1 is advertising the wrong network – 192.168.28.0/24 instead of 192.168.20.0/24.
Fa0/1 as an EIGRP passive interface on R3 will have not effect on that route being advertised since Fa0/0 is the interface on which EIGRP adjacency is formed with R1.
Thinking outside the box now, a static route on both R1 (for 172.16.0.64/26) and R3 (for 192.168.20.0/24) will also have fixed the problem.
The winner for this contest, being the first to comment with the correct answer, is “crUnk” and will be contacted about how he/she will receive the prize.
On a final note, anonymous commenting will now be allowed for those who just want to participate in contests without dropping their contact. Of course, for contests that are incentive-based, anonymous users cannot be winners since there will be no way to contact them.