From: Erick B. (erickbe@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 02:02:20 GMT-3
I meant that you might not need to have the network
statement covering the s0 network under RIP, unless it
was in the same classful range as the subnet
connecting to RTD in which case you can't remove it.
In the diagram below, theres no addressing info for
the subnets on the other routers.
--- Hunt Lee <huntl@webcentral.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:17 GMT-3