From: Robert Laidlaw (laidlaw@consecro.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 17:07:53 GMT-3
if all your subnets are on the 130.1.x.x with netmasks of 255.255.255.0 and
you enable rip with network 133.1.0.0 , then the rip process will be enabled
on all your interfaces which you can verify with "sh ip protocols".
(snip)
Default version control: send version 1, receive any version
Interface Send Recv Key-chain
Ethernet0/0 1 1 2
Serial0/0 1 1 2
Ethernet0/1 1 1 2
Routing for Networks:
133.1.0.0
(snip)
so rip is Actively sending anouncements for all the interfaces. If you make
e0/1 a passive interface, then its not activly part of the rip domain even
though the prefix will be in the rip updates.
(snip)
Default version control: send version 1, receive any version
Interface Send Recv Key-chain
Ethernet0/0 1 1 2
Serial0/0 1 1 2
Routing for Networks:
133.1.0.0
Passive Interface(s):
Ethernet0/1
(snip)
I think what cisco is after is that only one protocol is "running" on the
the interface be sending updates or forming adjacencies. The interface's
prefix whether its advertised via one routing process or seven, does not
change the fact that they want only one routing process active on any
particular interface. Also, I don't think passive interface count toward
the active stipulation or one rip process like the one above would back you
into a corner.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Danny.Andaluz@triaton-na.com>
To: <laidlaw@consecro.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: Interfaces in route process - redistributed
> This is an interesting question. In the requirement, it says "Only one
routing protocol can be active on any interface". As far as I know RIP is
running on both because of the class b network. As far as making one
passive under RIP, wouldn't that just keep the interface from sending out
updates? I think it would still be in the RIP process and get sent out in
advertisements out of different interfaces running RIP on the same router.
>
> Danny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Laidlaw [mailto:laidlaw@consecro.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 3:47 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Interfaces in route process - redistributed
>
>
> If you redistribute something into a protocol, say rip, that doesn't mean
that you have started the rip process on the redist. interface, it just
means your putting that prefix into the rip process. If you do a "show ip
protocols" you will see what interfaces are active in whatever routing
protocol your running. The question then is what defines ACTIVE? If rather
then redistribute, say you ran ospf and put a network statement into the
ospf domian but then made the interface a passive interface. Does a passive
interface mean you have two active protocols? I would say no, because you
have only active protocol and the other is passive.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Cash" <cash2001@swbell.net>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:17 PM
> Subject: Interfaces in route process - redistributed
>
>
> > If a requirement is stated as "Only one routing protocol can be active
> > on any interface"; is redistributing that interface into another
> > protocol a violation of the requirement? From reading a previous
> > thread, I was
> curious
> > and concerned about this. For instance, in the example below, E0 is
> > part
> of
> > the Rip process and the S0.24 is redistributed into it and vice versa
> > for EIGRP. Is this an acceptable solution or does this create the
> > instance of having two routing protocol active on an interface?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > interface Ethernet0
> >
> > description to R1 E0 (crossover)
> >
> > ip address 172.16.12.2 255.255.255.0
> >
> > !
> >
> > interface Serial0.24 point-to-point
> >
> > ip address 172.16.24.1 255.255.255.252
> >
> > !
> >
> > router rip
> >
> > redistribute connected metric 2 route-map ripc
> >
> > network 172.16.0.0
> >
> > !
> >
> > router eigrp 40
> >
> > redistribute connected route-map eigrpc
> >
> > network 172.16.24.0 0.0.0.3
> >
> > no auto-summary
> >
> > no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
> >
> > !
> >
> > ip access-list standard conn
> >
> > permit 172.16.12.0 0.0.0.255
> >
> > permit 172.16.24.0 0.0.0.3
> >
> > !
> >
> > route-map ripc permit 10
> >
> > match ip address conn
> >
> > !
> >
> > route-map eigrpc permit 10
> >
> > match ip address conn
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:32 GMT-3