From: R. Scott King (scking@cisco.com)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 22:49:56 GMT-3
Tim,
The "neighbor" command in EIGRP stops the broadcasting of hellos and sends
them only to the neighbor(s) configured. This is correct behavior.
Regards,
R. Scott King
Network Consulting Engineer
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Infrastructure Engineering Services - SP
9155 E. Nichols Avenue Suite 400
Englewood, CO 80112
720.895.6056 (desk)
720.244.5879 (cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Ouellette, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:28 PM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: eigrp neighbor command
I configured a router with a loopback ip of 2.2.2.2 on lo0
I enabled eigrp 2 with a network 2.0.0.0 statement and immediately saw the
hello's being multicast out of lo0 (see below)
I then configured a bogus neighbor of 2.2.2.22 and then saw unicast hellos
being sent that ip address as expected (see below)
but after I configured passive-interface, all hellos stopped being sent.
The one thing that did strick me as odd was that as soon as I entered the
"neighbor 2.2.2.22 loopback 0" that is stopped multicasting to 224.0.0.10
and only unicasted the hellos.
Can anyone else confirm?
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (Loopback0), len 60, sending
broad/mul
ticast
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (Loopback0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (Loopback0), len 60, sending
broad/mul
ticast
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (Loopback0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2
R2(config-router)#neighbor 2.2.2.22 lo 0
R2(config-router)#
R2#
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (local), d=2.2.2.22 (Loopback0), len 60, sending
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (Loopback0), d=2.2.2.22 (Loopback0), len 60, rcvd local
pkt
R2#
R2#
1w6d: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (local), d=2.2.2.22 (Loopback0), len 60, sending
1w6d: IP: s=2.2.2.2 (Loopback0), d=2.2.2.22 (Loopback0), len 60, rcvd local
pktu
n all
All possible debugging has been turned off
R2#
R2#
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Crisp [mailto:adam.crisp@totalise.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:47 AM
To: Tran Tien Phong; Jay Greenberg
Cc: Ram Shummoogum; eward15@juno.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: eigrp neighbor command
with RIP, you can use "passive interface" to block broadcast/multicast, and
use the neighbous command to unicast.
I assume the same is true of EIGRP.
Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Tran Tien Phong
Sent: 10 December 2002 12:33
To: Jay Greenberg
Cc: Ram Shummoogum; eward15@juno.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: eigrp neighbor command
If passive interface was specified, RIP and EIGRP will not send any
routing updates via the passive interface, even neighbor command used
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Greenberg [mailto:groupstudylist@execulink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:20 PM
To: Tran Tien Phong
Cc: Ram Shummoogum; eward15@juno.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: eigrp neighbor command
Event with passive-ineterface?
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 23:54, Tran Tien Phong wrote:
> For RIP, although you configure neighbor command, RIP updates still
sent to multicast address 224.0.0.9. You need to define an access-list
to prevent this
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Shummoogum [mailto:rshummoo@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tue 12/10/2002 8:21 AM
> To: eward15@juno.com
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re:eigrp neighbor command
>
>
>
> This is true for RIP but I am not sure about EIGRP. I know for a
fact that
> in EIGRP the passive-interface will prevent the formation of
neighbors.
>
> Rgds,
> RAM
>
>
>
> eward15@juno.com@groupstudy.com on 12/09/2002 07:52:52 PM
>
> Please respond to eward15@juno.com
>
> Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
>
>
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> cc:
> Subject: Re:eigrp neighbor command
>
>
> I believe the neighbor command is used to send routing
annoucements as
> unicast packets instead of multicast or broadcast cast packets.
For
> instance, there may be 5 routers on a segment but only two of
them are
> using the same routing protocol. Instead of needlessly sending
updates to
> the other routers, you could use a passive-interface to block
the
> broadcasts/multicasts on the interface and instead send a
directed unicast.
> Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Eugene Ward
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
> .
> .
> .
.
.
.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:43 GMT-3