From: Lord, Chris (chris.lord@lorien.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 18:00:41 GMT-3
JB,
The router connecting you to the backbone is not necessarily a redistribution point between eigrp and another IGP!
C.
-----Original Message-----
From: jbarrera [mailto:barrerj1@hotmail.com]
Sent: 16 July 2004 21:06
To: 'Felice Russell'; Lord, Chris; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: EIGRP connection to backbone routers
I was thinking more like not doing 2 way redistribution?
If I perform 1 way redistribution,
I still can get the routes from the BB but my backbone does not go to
the BB.
Still need to figure it out if those routes are supposed to be reachable
by ping.
JB
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Felice Russell
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:29 AM
To: 'Lord, Chris'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: EIGRP connection to backbone routers
I just re-read the question....and I think the distribute-list solution
is
the proper one. Passive-interface in eigrp does not permit neighbor
relationship to form so the router can not receive updates as with some
other protocols...
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/16.html
When the passive-interface command is used in EIGRP, the router cannot
form
neighbor adjacencies on the interface, or send or receive routing
updates.
However, if you want the outgoing routing updates alone be suppressed
but
the inbound updates continue to be received (and the routers still
continue
to be neighbors), then use the distribute-list command as follows:
R1(config)#access-list 20 deny any
R1(config)#router eigrp 1
R1(config-router)#no passive-interface serial 0
R1(config-router)#distribute-list 20 out serial 0
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Lord, Chris
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:39 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: EIGRP connection to backbone routers
I have come across several sample scenarios where, say, Rx is connected
to a
backbone router and they run eigrp between them. You are then asked not
to
send eigrp updates from your pod (Rx) to the backbone but you must be
able
to recieve routes from the bb. Two different solutions seem to be
forthcoming:
1) Rx: router eigrp 10
distribute-list 10 out e0/0
access-list 10 deny any
2) Rx: router eigrp 10
eigrp stub receive-only
If we were faced with this in the lab, provided that no other specific
information was provided, do you think either solution could be used. Or
have I missed some subtle difference between the two approaches?
Cheers,
Chris
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this email is confidential and is intended
for
the recipient only. If you have received it in error, please notify us
immediately by reply email and then delete it from your system. Please
do
not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any
other person or store or copy this information in any medium. The views
contained in this email are those of the author and not necessarily
those of
Lorien plc.
Thank you for your co-operation.
**********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:57 GMT-3