From: Glen Johnstone (glen@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 20:03:29 GMT-3
Ronnie,
I don't mean to belittle your config.
Kevin,
I run tunnels over the Internet between sites (encrypted, of course) and
EIGRP is my IGP. I certainly wouldn't include my registered subnet in the
EIGRP networks.
Glen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Baumgartner" <kbaumgar@cisco.com>
To: "Ronnie Royston" <RonnieR@globaldatasys.com>; "'Vikas Gupta'"
<vicky_gupta1803@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 17:43 PM
Subject: RE: RIPv2/EIGRP thru tunnel
> 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