Re: IGRP Issues

From: Ben Rife (brife@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 25 2000 - 15:28:57 GMT-3


   
   To all: Thanks for answering my question. I got it to work by changing
   my subnets in the IGRP domain ;)
   
   -Ben
   
   ----- Original Message -----
   
   From: Bill Carter CCIE 5022
   
   To: Ben Rife
   
   Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:44 PM
   
   Subject: Re: IGRP Issues
   
     Passive interface prevents updates from being sent out that
     interface, but it doesn't remove the interface from the routing
     protocol.
     
     2nd answer inline...
     Ben Rife wrote:
     
     Hi Everyone, 1st Question: I have two routers R2 and
     R3 R2----------R3 R2 has 3 interfaces:Lo0: 129.45.80.72 /30E0 :
     129.45.80.144 /29S0 : 129.45.80.4 /30 router igrp 100net
     129.45.0.0passive-interface lo 0 R3 has 3 interfaces:S0 :
     129.45.80.4 /30E0 : 129.45.80.48 /30S1 : 129.45.80.128 /29 router
     igrp 100net 129.45.0.0passive-interface e0passive-interface s1 On
     R3, when I "sh ip route", I see R2's loopback in my table. Why? I
     thought by "passive-int lo 0", I wouldn't see it? 2nd Question: If
     I run OSPF on R3's S1 interface, will I be able to redistribute
     that into IGRP since it is a /29 ? Please explain, it's been a long
     day and I'm not thinking straight.
     No. because of the Classless/classfull issues officially this
     won't work. What you do is have a default route in IGRP to get you
     to the OSPF doamin.
     
     I have included a lab I created to help study this.
     
     Bill Carter
     
     
     
     
     
     
      Thanks,Ben



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:22:45 GMT-3