From: Waters, Kivas (UK72) (Kivas.Waters@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 15:47:54 GMT-3
Yes, thinking about it again you're 100% correct, appologies if I misled
anyone.
regards
Ki
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Quiggle [mailto:aquiggle@nc.rr.com]
Sent: 13 January 2002 18:31
To: Waters, Kivas (UK72); steven; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: distribute list and passive-interface
You can't use a "distribute-list X out" to keep from advertising certain
routes to your neighbors. The only way to keep OSPF routes out of the
routing table is to use a "distribute-list X in" on the receiving router.
For example:
E0/R1/S0 ----S0/R2/S1------S1/R3
If R1 advertises 192.168.1.0/24 you can use the following to keep that
route out of R2's routing table:
router ospf 10
distribute-list 1 in Serial0
!
access-list 1 deny 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 1 permit any
However, the route is still in R2's LSA database and continues to get
flooded out. Meaning, R3 will still learn a route to 192.168.1.0/24.
With passive-interfaces when using a distance-vector routing protocol the
routes will get filtered as expected and subsequently not
distributed. Therefore if we were using IGRP/RIP in the situation above,
R3 would not learn a route to 192.168.1.0/24.
HTH,
AQ
At 04:19 AM 1/8/02, Waters, Kivas (UK72) wrote:
>The end result will be the same when configuring IGRP or RIP. As a point
of
>interrest, if you wanted to configure an OSPF interface as "passive" (ie
>equivalent to a RIP or IGRP passive interface) you could use your first
>option only.
>
>regards
>
>Ki
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: steven [mailto:adream@163.com]
>Sent: 08 January 2002 01:47
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: distribute list and passive-interface
>
>
>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 - 10:56:27 GMT-3