From: Chris (clarson52@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 18:12:07 GMT-3
I haven't tried it with the new code so I wanted to see. With EIGRP you are right. You do not need a passive AND a neighbor command to unicast updates. I am fairly postive that in earlier releases you do. My bad.
However with RIP both commands are needed to unicast to a nighbor.
I took out the routing updates for clarity.
With neighbor command sends both
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 255.255.255.255 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 255.255.255.255 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 255.255.255.255 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 255.255.255.255 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
Neighbor and passive command
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
4d22h: RIP: sending v1 update to 110.99.50.5 via Ethernet0 (110.99.50.6)
----- Original Message -----
From: <steven.j.nelson@bt.com>
To: <clarson52@comcast.net>; <flying_eskimo@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: passive-interface command
> The neighbor command is not specifically tied to the passive interface
> command. If you specify a static neighbor then it will always be considered
> a unicast neighbor.
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
> CCIE #10055
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:clarson52@comcast.net]
> Sent: 26 October 2002 18:59
> To: michael schwarz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: passive-interface command
>
>
> There is actually another use for passive interface in EIGRP that no one
> mentioned so I will put it here. This also works for RIp I believe.
>
> If you want to unicast updates to a nighbor put the passive-interface
> command under the process and configure a neighbor statement. So if you doe
> this under EIGRP put passive interface e0, then a neighbor statement to the
> neighbor on E0 and your updates will be unicast to that neighbor.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michael schwarz" <flying_eskimo@hotmail.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: passive-interface command
>
>
> > You can use passive int for eigrp/ospf but it does not operate the same as
> > RIP and IGRP.
> >
> > With RIP and IGRP you are correct in saying that the configured interface
> > "listens" wisely for updates but does not talk, or send updates.
> >
> > However EIGRP does not operate that way.
> >
> > In EIGRP and OSPF configuring an interface as passive effectively shuts
> down
> > the sending and recieving of hello packets. Obviously this causes any
> > neighbors hanging off that interface to be unable to form an adjacency
> with
> > this router, therefore you got nothing. Basically if you want to "turn
> off"
> > the protocol on a specific interface then use passive-int on OSPF and
> EIGRP.
> > In ospf though best practice would be to specifically enable ospf per int
> > using the net/area command. I believe that OSPF also views that
> > passive-interface as a stub network in the linkstate db.
> >
> > BGP does not have a passive command that i know of. Someone please
> correct
> > me if im wrong. You probably want to use neighbor shutdown or one of 20
> > million possible ways of filtering bgp routes depending on what you are
> > doing.
> >
> > If you want EIGRP or OSPF to act like RIP/IGRP (listen wisely but not
> talk)
> > you need to use a distribute list out. The hellos are not suppressed so
> > adjacencies form, routes are recieved from neighbors, but not SENT. and
> > this horse is now dead.
> >
> > michael
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jay" <ccienxtyear@hotmail.com>
> > To: "Tom Young" <gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: passive-interface command
> >
> >
> > > what I think makes the different is that OSPF has areas. So on a router,
> > if
> > > you have 2 ethernet interfaces and you are running OSPF and have defined
> > an
> > > area for the subnet thats on one of the ethernet interface, OSPF will
> not
> > > send hellos to the other ethernet interface since it is not part of an
> > OSPF
> > > area. Unlike Rip, IGRP & EIGRP, theres no areas. When you configure
> these
> > > protocols on a router, it will send hellos, broadcast to all interfaces
> on
> > > this particular router, unless you passive them.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tom Young" <gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:42 PM
> > > Subject: passive-interface command
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi, group
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for a simple question about the passive-interface
> > > > command, I know in the sence of distributing different
> > > > routing protocol we oftenly use the passive-interface
> > > > command, and I notice it is always rip , igrp, and eigrp
> > > > use it, (surpess rip eigrp's message to other area) for
> > > > the ospf and bgp it is always not use it, I don't know
> > > > why...
> > > > If you said rip and eigrp has the broadcast or
> > > > multicast address, but the ospf also has multicast address
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks alot
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo! http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:57 GMT-3