From: tan (tan@dia.janis.or.jp)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 06:14:13 GMT-3
> Ah, but it *is* routing-protocol specific. Just because the syntax is
> similar between different protocols doesn't mean that the
> internals are
> identical. Link-state and distance-vector routing protocols behave
> differently,
Entering a command under the protocol within the running config is indeed a
good ascertation that the process is protocol internal, but does not
necessarily mean the background logic used by each protocol in how it deals
with passive-interface isn't similar. Especially if there is a historical
precedent for how the command was first implemented, then copied over the
years with new protocols.
Most books only go as far as to say
"routing updates not sent"
"hellos not sent"
"no adjacencies, so no routing updates"
Now look at this surmise...
-passive interface kills packets destined for 255.255.255.255 and sourced
from this router.
Could not some variation on this with a little thought satisfy all results
seen in each protocol?
However, you are probably right in the end. Each protocol most likely has a
unique logical flowchart, and it is probably not as simple as an internal
ACL. Well, heck maybe it is simple, but the answer is probably too deep in
IOS code.
Thanks
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:49 GMT-3