From: Erhan Kurt (iekurt@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 20:41:48 GMT-3
Hi Kris,
Use distribute-list in via implicit deny the
interfaces you don't want in IGRP.
Erhan
--- Brian Dennis <brian@5g.net> wrote:
> Passive interface doesn't have anything to do with
> what networks are
> advertised or not with the exception of IS-IS.
> Passive interface only
> relates to the sending of updates out an interface
> or the sending of
> hellos out. Remember that a router with passive
> interface enabled can
> still receive updates on that interface (RIP and
> IGRP).
>
> With IS-IS the passive interface command will
> advertise the IP network
> for the interface that is made passive but the
> router will not try to
> form a neighbor relationship out that interface.
>
> As a side note Cisco added the "default" option to
> the passive interface
> command in IOS version 12.0 which means that all
> interfaces can be made
> passive with one command.
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP Dial)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Krake, Kris
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:31 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: IGRP/RIP advertising passive connected
> interfaces that are
> member s of other routing processes
>
> I was doing some work with IGRP/RIP and
> redistribution into OSPF and I
> came
> across something interesting I'd never really
> noticed. My requirements
> are
> to make sure the IGRP and RIP are not advertising
> out any non-specified
> interfaces. Fine, put in passive interfaces.
> Here's the question. If
> you
> look farther into say the IGRP process you will see
> networks advertised
> out
> "non-passive" interfaces for interfaces that are
> passive. For
> example...
>
>
> R1 ------ R2 -------R3
> IGRP OSPF
>
>
> R2 and R1 are talking rip and R2 and R3 are OSPF
> neighbors. In the IGRP
> process I have specified that the interface on R2
> connecting to R3 is
> passive. Both networks R1-R2 and R2-R3 are in the
> same major network.
> On R1
> I will see the network in IGRP for the link between
> R2 and R3. The only
> way
> I know to keep that from happening is to apply some
> type of distribute
> list.
> I'm wondering if there is something else that could
> be done to keep that
> from happening. The requirement was not to
> "advertise" out any non
> specified interfaces so I *think* I've met the
> requirements but I've got
> non
> IGRP networks stuck in my IGRP process. Is there a
> way to keep
> connected
> interfaces from being a part of the IGRP process? I
> know with EIGRP and
> the
> new mask command you can keep that from happening
> but what about RIP and
> IGRP?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Kris
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Kris A. Krake
> AIT Network Engineering and Consulting
> 502.560.2716
> kkrake@aegonusa.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:14 GMT-3