From: Kevin Baumgartner (kbaumgar@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 19:43:07 GMT-3
Your configuration looks good just wasn't sure what the passive interface
stuff was all about.
I agree total with you about defining network (ethernet) for EIGRP or RIPV2.
Why only run it over the tunnel. What does this do?
I am assuming the reason to do the tunnel to begin with was to connect
two separate EIGRP areas that had OSPF or some other routing protocol
in between and redistribution wasn't possible or allowed. Or the AS had
to be the same in both of these areas. Tunnel seems like the best solution
for this.
Kevin
At 04:30 PM 1/11/01 -0600, Ronnie Royston wrote:
>First, Kevin,
>
>Router(config-router)#default passive ?
> FastEthernet FastEthernet IEEE 802.3
> Loopback Loopback interface
> Null Null interface
> Serial Serial
> Tunnel Tunnel interface
> default Suppress routing updates on all interfaces
> <cr>
>
>Router(config-router)#default passive
>
>Next, Glen,
>
>I find it strange that he would want to advertise only loopbacks via EIGRP
>or RIPv2. Don't you think there would be a local interface addressed with
>some outside network that he'd like to tunnel routing protocols for? Say,
>an ethernet, for example, serial or token ring, whatever.
>
>Yea, he wanted to tunnel through an OSPF network. So, if there was no
>interface besides the tunnel that he did not want OSPF to see, then why
>tunnel in the first place? Why not just assign the network to the existing
>OSPF process?
>
>You guys be dissin my config. TCP/IP, all the way to the bank! Modular
>chassis rule! biaaattchh.
>
>Excuse me, too much Starbucks.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Baumgartner [mailto:kbaumgar@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:19 PM
>To: Ronnie Royston; 'Vikas Gupta'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: RIPv2/EIGRP thru tunnel
>
>
>So what does "default passive default" do? I am familiar with passive
>interface.
>Is it related to this?
>
> Also why do you need to do
>
>no pass lo0
>no pass e0
>
>Is this not the default anyway?
>
>Sorry I am just a little confused with what you are doing with these three
>commands?
>
> Kevin
>
>
>At 04:04 PM 1/11/01 -0600, Ronnie Royston wrote:
> >Insurance. That's just my way. I like have the routing protocol advertise
> >out interfaces that I specify only. In this isolated senario, it doesn't
> >make a difference.
> >
> >...just habit (and a good one, I believe).
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Kevin Baumgartner [mailto:kbaumgar@cisco.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:51 PM
> >To: Ronnie Royston; 'Vikas Gupta'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: RIPv2/EIGRP thru tunnel
> >
> >
> >At 03:21 PM 1/11/01 -0600, Ronnie Royston wrote:
> >
> > >There a few ways to do it, but here's one.
> > >
> > >R1:
> > >int lo0
> > >ip addres 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255
> > >!
> > >int tu0
> > >ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.255
> > >tunnel source lo0
> > >tunnel dest 2.2.2.2
> > >!
> > >router eigrp 10
> > >network 1.1.1.1
> > >network 3.3.3.3
> > >network (local ethernet)
> > >default passive default
> > >no pass lo0
> > >no pass e0
> >
> > So why the need for
> >
> > default passive default
> > no pass lo0
> > no pass e0
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:27 GMT-3