From: kasturi cisco (kasturi_cisco@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 11:42:26 GMT-3
Fanglo,
Are u trying to say that u observe the "passive-interface" on Eahart to
block the EIGRP routes from being redistributed into IGRP such that the
routes are not seen in Curtliss ? Just trying to understand and try it out ?
Thanks
kasturi.
>From: "Fanglo MA" <fangloma@pacific.net.hk>
>Reply-To: "Fanglo MA" <fangloma@pacific.net.hk>
>To: "'Harish DV/peakxv'" <harish.dv@peakxv.net>
>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: IP EIGRP summary address problem with passive interface
>Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:43:44 +0800
>
>Hi Harish,
>
>Thanks for your reply. But the problem in concern is the passive interface
>only connected with IGRP where that router running both EIGRP and IGRP. It
>seems the passive interface command not only blocks the enqueue process to
>physical interface but also affected the redistribution. My view to passive
>interface is it only drop the packet out/in from the interface. Any idea?
>
>Regards,
>Fanglo
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Harish DV/peakxv
>Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:39 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: IP EIGRP summary address problem with passive interface
>
>
>Some one posted a problem with the scenario on Page 380 in tcp/ip vol.1
>Actually, the passive interface command behaves differently in eigrp. Look
>at this :
>
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/16.html
>
>I guess this is 12.0.9 onwards.
>
>The workaround is using a distribule list
>
>HTH
>
>Harish
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:26 GMT-3