From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sun Oct 26 2003 - 19:12:13 GMT-3
David,
Why do you want to remove the host route in the first place?
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 708-362-1418 (Outside the US and Canada)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> David Deng
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Brian Dennis
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: remove the /32 host route for PPPOA virtual Access int
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I must be missing something here.
>
> After I done the shut/no sh, the route is still here.
> You are right about the neighbor not been accessible
> after the command " no peer neighbor-route " and need
> a bounce on the atm interface.
>
> My point is it may not be desiable to install the host
>
> route onto other routers.
>
> on r9 :
> int a0.3 multipoint
> ip add 136.10.66.9 255.255.255.0
> snip
> ...
> Sh ip ro here still has the route can not be remove.
>
> C 136.10.66.6/32 is directly connected,
> Virtual-Access1
>
> It shows as directly connected for the virtual-access1
> of the neighbor(r6)as /32 host address. It is a /24
> address from r6 side.
>
> Is this the nature of Vitrtual-templeate ?
>
> Thanks,
> Gwan
> --- Brian Dennis <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>
> wrote:
> > After you apply the command you will need to bounce
> > the interface. At the
> > bottom of this e-mail is a working example with a
> > virtual-template and
> > PPPoA.
> >
> > Before you disable the peer neighbor-route command
> > let me ask you this. How
> > are you going to be able to reach the remote side's
> > unnumbered interface if
> > you disable PPP's ability to install a route for it
> > in the routing table?
> > Basically you need to understand what the peer
> > neighbor-route command does
> > and what the effects are of removing it. If you are
> > doing IP unnumbered I
> > would 'not' recommend disabling the peer
> > neighbor-route command.
> >
> > Rack1R6#sho ip route connected | in /32
> > C 54.1.7.254/32 is directly connected,
> > Virtual-Access2
> > Rack1R6#conf t
> > Enter configuration commands, one per line. End
> > with CNTL/Z.
> > Rack1R6(config)#int virtual-template 1
> > Rack1R6(config-if)#no peer neighbor-route
> > Rack1R6(config-if)#int atm0/0/0
> > Rack1R6(config-if)#shut
> > *Jun 7 05:55:12.216: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface
> > Virtual-Access2, changed
> > state to down
> > *Jun 7 05:55:12.788: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface
> > ATM0/0/0, changed state to
> > administratively down
> > *Jun 7 05:55:13.216: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line
> > protocol on Interface
> > Virtual-Access2, changed state to down
> > *Jun 7 05:55:13.788: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line
> > protocol on Interface
> > ATM0/0/0, changed state to down
> > *Jun 7 05:55:31.812: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface
> > ATM0/0/0, changed state to
> > down
> > Rack1R6(config-if)#no shut
> > Rack1R6(config-if)#^Z
> > Rack1R6#
> > *Jun 7 05:55:35.128: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface
> > ATM0/0/0, changed state to
> > up
> > *Jun 7 05:55:35.728: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured
> > from console by console
> > *Jun 7 05:55:36.128: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line
> > protocol on Interface
> > ATM0/0/0, changed state to up
> > *Jun 7 05:55:49.616: %LANE-6-INFO: ATM0/0/0: ILMI
> > prefix add event received
> > *Jun 7 05:55:52.216: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface
> > Virtual-Access2, changed
> > state to up
> > *Jun 7 05:55:53.224: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line
> > protocol on Interface
> > Virtual-Access2, changed state to up
> > Rack1R6#sho ip route connected | in /32
> > Rack1R6#
> >
> > Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
> > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
> > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > David Deng
> > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 4:18 PM
> > To: Brian Dennis
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: remove the /32 host route for PPPOA
> > virtual Access int
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Thanks for reply.
> > I did have the command on the virtual-template and
> > it
> > did not make any difference for me. So I decided to
> > ask for help...
> >
> >
> > r9#sh run int virtual-te 1
> > Building configuration...
> >
> > Current configuration : 81 bytes
> > !
> > interface Virtual-Template1
> > ip unnumbered ATM0.3
> > no peer neighbor-route
> > end
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> > --- Brian Dennis <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Did you try "no peer neighbor-route"? I'm assuming
> > > you are using PPP since
> > > you mentioned a virtual-access interface.
> > >
> > > Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
> > > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
> > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > David Deng
> > > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:24 PM
> > > To: David Deng
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: remove the /32 host route for PPPOA
> > > virtual Access int
> > >
> > > Missing some information here.
> > >
> > > The routers are running Eigrp.
> > > They saw each other interface as /32.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > David
> > >
> > > two routers are
> > > --- David Deng <glend_99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello there,
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone knows how to remove the /32 host
> > route
> > > > caused by the virtual-access ?
> > > >
> > > > TIA,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
> > > > search
> > > > http://shopping.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:53:08 GMT-3