From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Nov 10 2001 - 23:47:33 GMT-3
correction: I didn't mean to say ipx at the end.
fred couples wrote:
> There seemed to be a disagreement on using ip rip
> neighbor statements and blocking broadcasts so I tried
> it out myself. Here's the results:
>
> - rip v1 and no neighbor statement: sent to
> 255.255.255.255
> - rip v1 and neighbor statement: sent to
> 255.255.255.255 and unicast to the neighbor also
> - rip v1 and neighbor and passive-interface: no worky
> (technical term of the day)
> - rip v2 and no neighbor: sent to 224.0.0.9
> - rip v2 and neighbor: sent to 224.0.0.9 and unicast
> to neighbor
> - rip v2 and neighbor and passive-interface: no worky
>
> so if the requirement is to turn off ipx traffic being
> broadcast out you need to use ripv2, which uses
> multicast, not broadcast.
>
> Fred
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:12 GMT-3