Refer to the exhibit. A customer runs EIGRP and has remote routers with EIGRP stub configured. The customer tests the redundancy by shutting down the B link, and surprisingly the 10.0.0.0/24 subnet…

Waiting for the EIGRP dead timer does not resolve the issue because the root cause is the stub configuration suppressing route advertisements, not a neighbor adjacency or convergence timing problem.

EIGRP Stub Route Leaking allows a stub router to selectively advertise specific prefixes to the hub, overriding the default stub suppression behavior. Without this feature, when link B fails the stub router silently withholds the advertisement for 10.0.0.0/24 even though an alternate path exists, making the subnet unreachable from the hub; enabling stub route leaking permits that specific prefix to be propagated.

Removing summarization does not address the stub behavior that prevents the router from advertising EIGRP-learned routes to its hub neighbor.

Deploying multiple EIGRP stub routers in a hub-and-spoke topology is a valid and supported design; the problem is the route suppression behavior of stub, not the number of stub routers present.