From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 20:37:25 GMT-3
Passive-interface
Or better yet,
Passive-interface default (use this with rip)
Will prevent hello packets of eigrp and ospf. It will stop routing
updates of rip, but you still can listen in incoming updates.
In isis, it gets better. It will function as a network statement and a
passive statement.
Use route-maps to pick the connected routes you want.
Route-map connected
Match int lo0 e0
Router eigrp
Redistribute connected route-map connected metric 1 1 1 1 1
One more thing, there's a special case where in ospf where if you don't
passive a non-neighbored interface it will break the route. Save
yourself some trouble, if your ospf interface doesn't have a neighbor;
passive it and move on. I spend two hours once trying to figure that
one out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Packet Man [mailto:ccie2b@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:38 PM
To: Colin.Fowlie@aliant.ca; rionaldi@cbn.net.id
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Directly Connected Injection Rule
This is a follow up question.
Would configuring passive-interface under a routing process "deactivate"
that routing protocol for that interface?
>From: "Fowlie, Colin" <Colin.Fowlie@aliant.ca>
>Reply-To: "Fowlie, Colin" <Colin.Fowlie@aliant.ca>
>To: "'Prio utomo'" <rionaldi@cbn.net.id>
>CC: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: Directly Connected Injection Rule
>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:02:23 -0400
>
>I would interpret "activated" as meaning the routing protocol is
actively
>running on that interface (sending hellos/updates etc depending on
>protocol).
>
>That being said, redistributing a connected route into a routing
protocol
>would not violate this requirement, since the routing protocol would
not be
>"activated" on the interface.
>
>Colin Fowlie
>#12757
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Prio utomo [mailto:rionaldi@cbn.net.id]
>Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:48 PM
>To: CCIE
>Subject: Directly Connected Injection Rule
>
>Hi,
>
>I apologize that this question might already asked before, since I
>confuse what "keyword" to find in the archive...
>
>If it is being stated "Only one routing protocol can be activaated on
>any interface. Do not actively run routing protocols on on an interface
>if it is not necessary."
>
>1. Will this rule be broke if we redistribute all connected interfaces
>to several routing protocol in the same router.
>The reason I asked question 1, I am facing weird situation that forcing
>me to redistribute all connected interface interface to several routing
>protocol... like being posted of from several colleague
>
>R1 S0--------------S0 R2 S1------------S0 R3
>
>R1 S0 and R2 S0 in OSPF
>R2 S1 and R3 S0 in EIGRP
>
>mutual redistribution happen in R2, and R1 cannot ping R2 S1 interface.
>I can resolve this by redistributed connected int to EIGRP and OSPF..
>
>Regards,
>Rio
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:13:48 GMT-3