From: Hunt Lee (huntl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 00:40:58 GMT-3
Hi Erick,
Thanks for that. But taking out the network command (for the link between
RTC & RTD) and use the "redistributed connected" under the RIP process at
RTC, RTC will no longer be able to see the 2 networks advertised by RTD
(156.26.32.0/24 & 156.26.33.0/24).
Regards,
H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Erick B. [mailto:erickbe@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2002 1:28 PM
To: Hunt Lee; 'Chris Hugo'; 'Desimone, Aurelio'
Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: Passive-interface problem
Hunt,
The passive interface toward RTB will stop RIP
broadcasts from being sent, which is one less thing
the CPU has to do so it helps a little bit. You could
also take that network out from the RIP process and
redistribute connected into RIP to stop the
advertisements out s0. Use a route-map just to get the
networks you want.
--- Hunt Lee <huntl@webcentral.com.au> wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> > With rip, passive only stops the router from
> advertising routes, not
> > receiving them. You need to put a distribute list
> that blocks everything.
>
> Thanks so much for you guys explanation. Does it
> means that since I don't
> have any RIPv2 routers on the left (both RTA & RTB
> are only using OSPF), the
> "passive-interface <Serial 0>" command at RTC's
> interface (towards RTB) is
> redundant because OSPF won't understand any RIPv2
> routes advertised by RTC
> anyway??
>
> Regards,
>
> H.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hugo [mailto:chrishugo@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2002 6:42 AM
> To: Erick B.; Hunt Lee; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Passive-interface problem
>
>
> Just adding to Eric's post. With distance-vector
> protocols (rip,igrp) the
> statement that Eric wrote is correct. With Eigrp and
> OSPF the passive
> interface actually blocks hello packets from being
> sent. Hello packets help
> a routing protocol KNOW if their neighbor is dead or
> alive. When you enable
> passive-interface under your routing process you are
> not permitting hellos
> out that specific interface which in turn will now
> allow any adjacency to
> form over that link.
> Another thing just because you passive-interface for
> one routing process for
> example RIP this does not passive-interface for
> another routing protocol for
> example OSPF you might have running on that SAME
> interface.
> HTH,
> chris hugo
> "Erick B." <erickbe@yahoo.com> wrote: Passive
> interface stops the router
> from *sending*
> broadcast/multicast routing updates. The router will
> still *listen* to and accept routes unless they are
> filtered out.
>
> --- Hunt Lee wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I'm trying to work out what does
> "passive-interface
> > " do...
> >
> > RTA -- RTB -- RTC -- RTD - 156.26.32.0/24 &
> > 156.26.33.0/24
> >
> >
> > Both RTA, B & C are using OSPF.
> > RTC also uses RIP v2, so it's an ASBR.
> > And RTD uses RIPv2.
> >
> > RTC's Serial 0 interface is connecting to RTB &
> > RTC's Serial 1 interface is connecting to RTD
> >
> > RTD advertise the 2 networks 156.26.32.0/24 &
> > 156.26.33.0/24 with
> > RIPv2.
> >
> > RTC is doing mutual redistribution, where the
> RIPv2
> > is being
> > redistributed into OSPF, and OSPF is being
> > redistributed back into
> > RIP.
> >
> > And there is a distribute-list at RTC to stop RTD
> to
> > advertise any
> > OSPF learned routes back into OSPF.
> >
> > router rip
> > version 2
> > redistribute ospf 3 metric 5
> > network 10.0.0.0
> > distribute-list 1 in Serial1
> > no auto-summary
> > !
> > access-list 1 permit 156.26.32.0 0.0.1.255
> >
> > But I couldn't find the use of the
> > "passive-interface" command.
> >
> > RouterC(config)#router rip
> > RouterC(config-router)#passive-interface serial 0
> >
> > It just doesn't seems to do anything. With it or
> > without it, my OSPF
> > routers (RTA & RTB) can get the RIP routes and
> able
> > to reach
> > 156.26.32.0 & 33.0 network.
> >
> > Any ideas are welcome.
> >
> > H.
> >
> > http://digital.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Digital How
> To
> > - Get the best out of your PC!
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:17 GMT-3