From: Richard Gallagher (rgallagh@cisco.com)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2005 - 15:36:19 GMT-3
If you have passive-int then I think that even static neighbours will not
form, not 100% sure, but cannot test it right now.
-- * Rich Gallagher - Cisco Systems TAC * CCIE #7211 - R&S, C&S * EMEA Routing Protocols Team * Email: rgallagh@cisco.com----- Original Message ----- From: <alsontra@hotmail.com> To: "'Bajo Alex'" <bajoalex@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:42 AM Subject: RE: EIGRP neighbor statements
> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Subscription information may be found at: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > http://my.yahoo.com > > --- > 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 > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:20 GMT-3