From: Steven (adream@xxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 06:01:54 GMT-3
but they got the same result to some extent.
The router next to ser 0 could n't receive igrp update .
"passive-int" doesn't send update,"distrib-list" drops all packet incluing igrp
update.
It seems using "passive-int" saves cpu resources.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Geiger" <geiger_rich@hotmail.com>
To: <adream@163.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: distribute list and passive-interface
> Yes the deny all will still have the interface go through the
> route-genration process on the interface. Also if you deny all you will
> prevent yourself from using the neighbor command.
>
> Remember: Passive interface will not generate broadcast routes out the
> interface. Combine this with the neighbor command to use unicasts, this is
> good in NMBA, or where you don't need every station listening to your
> routes.
>
> Only use the distrib list as a filter.
>
>
> >From: "steven" <adream@163.com>
> >Reply-To: "steven" <adream@163.com>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: distribute list and passive-interface
> >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:47:10 +0800
> >
> >any difference between the following 2 config:
> >
> >access-list 1 deny all
> >router igrp 1
> >
> >......
> >distribute 1 out ser 0
> >
> >
> >router igrp 1
> >
> >passive-interface ser 0
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:20 GMT-3