From: Bajo Alex (bajoalex@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 15:01:17 GMT-3
Al,
No, I have not attempted to remove multicast. EIGRP
uses multicast hellos (224.0.0.10) to form neighbor.
My guess is it will not work w/out it.
Will be nice to try :)
Alex
--- alsontra@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> Have you tested this? Say, remove multicast support
> from a vlan and use
> neighbors statements to establish the peering? I
> think this statement
> further complicates things. :-)
>
> Thanks.
> Al
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bajo Alex [mailto:bajoalex@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 11:26 AM
> To: alsontra@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: EIGRP neighbor statements
>
> Alsontra,
>
> I happen to be reading on the second part just
> yesterday.
>
> Multicast info is required to form neighbor.
>
> From Scott Morris' Bootcamp Guide (IPexpert):
> "The loss of multicast hello packets being exchanged
> will cause the loss of neighbor relationship
> regradless of any static neighbor configuration"
>
> --- alsontra@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:20 GMT-3