From: EA Louie (elouie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 23:52:05 GMT-3
...and if you need an exercise to demonstrate this, check out Doyle Vol 1, p
210 (CaseStudy: Configuring Unicast Updates)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Davis" <miked@netrus.net>
To: "Larson, Chris (Contractor)" <Chris.Larson@ed.gov>; "'Ouellette, Tim'"
<tim.ouellette@eds.com>; "'Richard Foltz'" <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>; "ccielab"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Rip Neigbor statment
> That's correct. You can use the two together to send unicast only.
>
> Mike
> #7303
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larson, Chris (Contractor)" <Chris.Larson@ed.gov>
> To: "'Ouellette, Tim'" <tim.ouellette@eds.com>; "'Richard Foltz'"
> <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>; "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:13 PM
> Subject: RE: Rip Neigbor statment
>
>
> > Actually, looking back through the docs, you may be right. It appears
that
> > when combined with the neighbor statement passive interface let's you
send
> > to specific neighbors.
> >
> > I have never used the 2 together and I am having trouble deciphering
what
> > this really means and should get it into my lab.
> >
> > I assume that since you can use them together to force updates to a
> > particular host that when you use the neighbor command by itself that it
> > will both unicast to the neighbor as well as attempt to broadcast, even
> out
> > the same interface that neighbor might be on.
> >
> > When you use the 2 together I suppose it blocks the broadcast and only
> let's
> > the uni through However, I am only guessing by whatI read in the docs.
I
> > have always been under the impression that passive keeps the interface
> from
> > advertiseing PERIOD. Apparently though that is not true.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ouellette, Tim [mailto:tim.ouellette@eds.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:20 PM
> > To: 'Richard Foltz'; ccielab
> > Subject: RE: Rip Neigbor statment
> >
> >
> > So basically with the passive-interface set, it won't send the
broadcasts
> > but if you have the neighbour defined it'll still send out the unicast
to
> > those defined hosts whether passive is there or not? Does this sound
> right?
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Foltz [SMTP:ccie2b@rfoltz.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:37 PM
> > > To: RB; ccielab
> > > Subject: Re: Rip Neigbor statment
> > >
> > > it wont if you have made the interface passive. If its not passive,
then
> > > it
> > > will still send the broadcasts.
> > >
> > > Richard Foltz, CCIE#8339, CCNP-Voice, CCDP, MCSE+I, Network+, A+
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "RB" <slowgo@home.com>
> > > To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:27 PM
> > > Subject: Rip Neigbor statment
> > >
> > >
> > > > I know that the neigbor statement in rip sends out unicast updates
to
> > > that
> > > > neighbor, but does it also send no other updates? Let's say you had
> > > several
> > > > routers on an ethernet segment with RIP running, and you used a
> neigbor
> > > > statement from a-b, does c no longer receive rip updates from a?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > RBI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:11 GMT-3