From: alsontra@hotmail.com
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 02:38:15 GMT-3
Thanks Rich,
I've read this before and still can't believe it! How are EIGRP neighbor
relationship formed over SVCs, which will not initiate a VC based upon
multicast traffic? It seems to me that you simply must use this command for
SVC.
Any ideas as to alternative methodologies? (i.g. Nat the multicast into a
unicast.)
Thanks again,
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Gallagher [mailto:rgallagh@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 11:15 AM
To: alsontra@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: EIGRP neighbor statements
The EIGRP neighbor statement is not recommened:
From: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/103/eigrpfaq.shtml#ten
Q. What does the neighbor statement in the EIGRP configuration section do?
A. Although the neighbor command is accepted by the Cisco IOS. parser, it
should not be used. The neighbor statement does not behave as intended and
can have a negative effect on EIGRP neighbors.
When you use the nieghbor statement it stops the dynamic formation of
neighbours, so you need to confgiure all possible neighbours statically. But
this should not affect the amount of time it take for the neighbours to
form, 1.5 minutes sounds like quite a long time.
Run a few debugs to see what is happening, debug eigrp pack and debug ip
eigrp.
HTH, Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: <alsontra@hotmail.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 6:10 PM
Subject: EIGRP neighbor statements
> All,
>
> These are just a few general question related to the use of the EIGRP
> neighbor statement. There is very limited documentation on the use and
> configuration of the statement, so I'm hoping to tap the group's
collective
> wisdom.
>
> 1. When using neighbor statements over ATM SVC, PVC is it common for
> adjacency to take a few minutes to establish? - In my experience it
usually
> takes 1.5 minutes of greater for an adjacency to establish - Is this the
> normal behavior?
>
> 2. Under the usage guideline CISCO states the following:
>
> "With most routing protocols, the passive-interface command restricts
> outgoing advertisements only. However, when used with the Enhanced
Interior
> Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP), the use of the passive-interface command
> suppresses the exchange of hello messages between two routers, which
results
> in the loss of their neighbor relationship. This behavior stops not only
> routing updates from being advertised, but it also suppresses incoming
> routing updates."
>
> Which essentially means, "Do not use the passive interface command with
> Eigrp neighbor statements". I'm not sure how that works considering the
> EIGRP hellos are Unicast. Anyone have the story on this one?
>
> Al
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 7/19/2004
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 7/19/2004--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.725 / Virus Database: 480 - Release Date: 7/19/2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:20 GMT-3