From: Yves Fauser (Yves@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 06:30:03 GMT-3
Yes that was a typo, thank you.
here is the corrected version :
-------------------------------------
R1 advertises 10.0.0.0/8 to R2, R2 advertises 10.0.0.0/8 as an IGRP
system route
to R3, R3 advertises 10.0.0.0/8 as an IGRP system route to R4 (!passive
interface on R2!). R4 sends 10.0.0.0/8 to R2. Since IGRP has a higher AD
then OSPF,
R4 is selected as the best route to 10.0.0.0/8.
The loop circles around one more time, R4 finds out that he gets
fooled by R3 (!counting to infinity!) and sends the route as
inaccessible to R2.
R2 enters into holddown. When holddown timer expires 10.0.0.0/8 via R4
gets
flushed. R2 enters 10.0.0.0/8 in its route table via OSPF and the whole
process
restarts any.
----------------------------------------
I did not see it after your first mail, thanks Yves.
jonatale@earthlink.net wrote:
> i think you meant to say :
> "R4 (!passive
> interface on R2!)."
>
> instead of:
> "R2 (!passive
> interface on R2!)."
>
> Yves Fauser wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > if the interface on R2 that is connected to R4 is not passive, R2 will send
the
> > network 10.0.0.0/8 to R4. Since R4 learns the route to 10.0.0.0/8 from R2,
split
> > horizon on R4 will prevent 10.0.0.0/8 to be send back to R2. If R4 doesn't
learn
> > 10.0.0.0/8 from R2, it will send it over to R2, and the loop will be create
d, that's
> > why I need the passive interface on R2. You will have the same result if yo
u disable
> > split horizon on R4's outgoing interface to R2.
> >
> > Yves
> >
> > jonatale@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > > did you shut off split horizon on R3 or should "R2" read "R4" in "R2 (!pa
ssive
> > > interface on R2!)." or did i miss something???
> > >
> > > thnx
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:48 GMT-3