From: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 18:28:50 GMT-3
Chris
No problem.
Always remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat, the combo you
stated is fine for this scenario but there are other ways too.
Cheers
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris [mailto:clarson52@comcast.net]
Sent: 26 October 2002 22:19
To: Nelson,SJ,Steven,IVNH33 C; flying_eskimo@hotmail.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: passive-interface command
I see what you are saying about them not being tied. I only wanted to make
the point that if in the lab they ask you to unicast to a neighbor, that in
RIP you need to do both.
Sorry for the mis-communication.
----- Original Message -----
From: steven.j.nelson@bt.com <mailto:steven.j.nelson@bt.com>
To: clarson52@comcast.net <mailto:clarson52@comcast.net> ;
flying_eskimo@hotmail.com <mailto:flying_eskimo@hotmail.com> ;
ccielab@groupstudy.com <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: passive-interface command
chris
I have replied to you offline, you did not state that the requirement was to
only unicast toa single neighbor.
The broadcasts you are seeing is the default behaviour of RIP, all the
passive interface command is doing is stopping RIP from sending updates on
an interface. The neighbor command is what is cauing the unicast update.
Thanks
Steve
CCIE#10055
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris [mailto:clarson52@comcast.net]
Sent: 26 October 2002 22:12
To: Nelson,SJ,Steven,IVNH33 C; flying_eskimo@hotmail.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: passive-interface command
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: < <mailto:steven.j.nelson@bt.com> steven.j.nelson@bt.com>
To: < <mailto:clarson52@comcast.net> clarson52@comcast.net>; <
<mailto:flying_eskimo@hotmail.com> flying_eskimo@hotmail.com>; <
<mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.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; <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com>
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" < <mailto:flying_eskimo@hotmail.com>
flying_eskimo@hotmail.com>
> To: < <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com> 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" < <mailto:ccienxtyear@hotmail.com> ccienxtyear@hotmail.com>
> > To: "Tom Young" < <mailto:gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>
gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>; < <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com>
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" < <mailto:gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>
gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>
> > > To: < <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com> 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/>
http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:57 GMT-3