From: Dillon Yang (gzdillon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 11:56:12 GMT-3
Hi, Scott:
I draw a conclusion based on your message:
prot. tx route rx route advertised
ospf no tx rt no rx rt yes
isis no tx rt no rx rt yes
eigrp no tx rt no rx rt yes
rip no tx rt yes rxrt yes
igrp no tx rt yes rxrt yes
Is it right?
dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: "'Sumit'" <sumit.kumar@comcast.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 3:10 AM
Subject: RE: eigrp neighbor command
> With RIP, the passive interface command will do what you want... The
> neighbor command in RIP does not turn off the broadcast/multicast behavior.
> So you would get both unicast and the group-method working at the same time.
> Incoming updates would still be accepted with passive-interface.
>
> With EIGRP, the passive-interface command prevents things from in as well as
> going out. It basically turns off that interface from participating in
> EIGRP. Remember that in EIGRP we need a neighbor pairing/relationship, so
> things are going to be a bit different now.
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Sumit
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:36 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: eigrp neighbor command
>
> Does the same apply to RIP too?
> what I understood for RIP unicast neighbor you need to make interface
> passive along with static neigbor command.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Ryan" <chryan@cisco.com>
> To: <swm@emanon.com>
> Cc: "'Tom Young'" <gitsyoung@yahoo.co.jp>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 12:53 PM
> Subject: RE: eigrp neighbor command
>
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > Thanks for the helpful information.
> >
> > I was just about to ask some further questions, but before I did, I
> > told myself to take some of my own medicine and lab it up and find out
> > for myself. :-p
> >
> > So I did......
> >
> > These were my questions (I've supplied my own answers after testing
> > this
> in
> > the lab):
> >
> > Q) if you configure "neighbor x.x.x.x s0/0" under the EIGRP process
> > how do you verify that it's working?
> > A) issue the "show ip eigrp nei" command, and on the far right hand
> > side under "Type", you should see an S for static neighbor. When
> > "Type" is blank, it means the neighbor was discovered dynamically.
> >
> > Q) How else can I verify that packets/updates are being sent unicast
> > and not via multicast to 224.0.0.10 ?
> > A) You can configure an extended ACL to "permit eigrp any any log-input"
> > like so:
> >
> > access-list 101 permit eigrp any any log-input
> >
> > apply the ACL on the inbound side of your interface connecting to your
> > EIGRP neighbor:
> >
> > ip access-group 101 in
> >
> > and then you should see matches for the ACL that show eigrp packets
> > coming from source x.x.x.x with a destination address of your
> > connecting
> interface
> > address, and not that of the multicast address 224.0.0.10. If you
> > remove the "neighbor x.x.x.x int y/z" command from the EIGRP process
> > (on both sides), then your ACL will show that you are receiving eigrp
> > packets from neighbor x.x.x.x with a destination address of 224.0.0.10.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > At 11:03 AM 3/5/2005, Scott Morris wrote:
> > >You have to be careful NOT to use passive-interface here. It
> > >functions differently with EIGRP. Notes to this effect are also
> > >present in the command reference on DocCD.
> > >
> > >Scott
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > >Of Chuck Ryan
> > >Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:21 AM
> > >To: Tom Young
> > >Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: Re: eigrp neighbor command
> > >
> > >Hello Tom,
> > >
> > >Your correct in that hello packets to 224.0.0.10 will not be used. To
> > >see what really happens when you use the neighbor command and
> passive-interface
> > >under EIGRP, lab this up between 2 routers and observe the results.
> > >
> > >I believe that you'll find the results you get when using this with
> EIGRP,
> > >are nowhere near the same as when used with RIP.
> > >
> > >Also, take a look at the EIGRP FAQ here on CCO with regards to the
> > >use of the neighbor command under EIGRP, and what benefits it does
> > >not bring
> you:
> > >
> >
> >http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk365/technologies_q_and_a_item
> >0918
> 6
> > >a008012dac4.shtml#ten
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Chuck
> > >
> > >At 09:56 AM 3/5/2005, Tom Young wrote:
> > > >hi group
> > > >
> > > > The eigrp use multicast ip 224.0.0.10 for sharing the
> > > >routing,but if I use the neighbor command in eigrp, it will
> > > >transfer ip information by unicast to neighbor ,multicast ip 224.0.0.10
> will not be used,right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________
> > > >Let's Celebrate Together!
> > > >Yahoo! JAPAN
> > > >http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/so2005/
> > > >
> > > >___________________________________________________________________
> > > >____ Subscription information may be found at:
> > > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >_____________________________________________________________________
> > >__ Subscription information may be found at:
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _ Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:42 GMT-3