From: Richard Gallagher (rgallagh@cisco.com)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 14:56:17 GMT-3
> 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.
OK I see your point...but it should still not take 1.5 minutes to form an
adjacency.
> Any ideas as to alternative methodologies? (i.g. Nat the multicast into a
> unicast.)
Sounds like an idea, but maybe a GRE tunnel is another option, although not
a great one :)
> 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