From: MADMAN (dmadlan@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 18:22:54 GMT-3
Correct. in the beginning Cisco only supported multipoint frame and
because of the issues you raise and IPX and appletalk have no similiar
split horizon on/off button, split horizon was disabled when you
configured frame encap. A smart dude at Cisco came up with p-p
subinterfaces and made the world a simpler place!!
dave
"Wright, Jeremy" wrote:
>
> you are right with what you are saying. my question is, with split horizon
> on, normally the updates would not make it to the other spoke because split
> horizon will not allow that. so, with split horizon on it wont get there but
> if i specify a neighbor statement will the update be unicast to the the
> other spoke. sorry for the confusion...just getting my weird scenarios
> straight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tarek Sabry [mailto:tsabry@houston.sns.slb.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: 'Wright, Jeremy'; dmadlan@qwest.com
> Cc: 'Mingzhou Nie'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: rip & split horizon
>
> I'm having a hard time following this thread! If I understand correctly,
> Dave is correct; split horizon is on, so disable it in order for RIP to
> work. If you want to use unicase RIP then go ahead and define neighbors.
>
> Tarek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Wright, Jeremy
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:33 PM
> To: 'dmadlan@qwest.com'; Wright, Jeremy
> Cc: 'Mingzhou Nie'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: RE: rip & split horizon
>
> yes a frame network. but cant you go back and manually turn split horizon on
> the interface. obviously this is not real world, im trying to think of every
> stupid possible scenario for the lab.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MADMAN [mailto:dmadlan@qwest.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: Wright, Jeremy
> Cc: 'Mingzhou Nie'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Re: rip & split horizon
>
> is this a frame network were talking about?? If so split horizon is
> disable.
>
> Dave
>
> "Wright, Jeremy" wrote:
> >
> > without neighbor statements though wouldnt split horizon stop it going out
> > to the other spoke since it is on the same interface
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MADMAN [mailto:dmadlan@qwest.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:05 PM
> > To: Wright, Jeremy
> > Cc: 'Mingzhou Nie'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > Subject: Re: rip & split horizon
> >
> > Yes, without neighbor statements.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > "Wright, Jeremy" wrote:
> > >
> > > i understand that. im talking straight physical interfaces. so if the
> hub
> > > (r1) receives an update from spoke 1(r2) will it forward the update to
> the
> > > other spoke 2 (r3) if you have neighbor statements at the hub pointing
> to
> > > the spokes.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mingzhou Nie [mailto:mnie@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 2:07 PM
> > > To: Wright, Jeremy; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > > Subject: Re: rip & split horizon
> > >
> > > whether split horizon is on or not depends on interface type. main
> > > interface has it on and subinterface has it off. It has nothing to do
> > > with using neighbor or not.
> > >
> > > --- "Wright, Jeremy" <JA_WRIGHT@admworld.com> wrote:
> > > > i understand the concept of rip and split horizon. if you have a hub
> > > > and
> > > > spoke setup and if you do neighbor statements at the hub pointing to
> > > > the 2
> > > > spokes will the update get there with split horizon turned on? i dont
> > > > have
> > > > the equipment in front of me to simulate this right now. thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ************************
> > > > Jeremy Wright
> > > > Network Analyst
> > > > Archer Daniels Midland
> > > > ja_wright@admworld.com
> > > > (217)451-4063
> > > >
> > > > ************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:04 GMT-3