From: Dillon Yang (gzdillon@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 09 2005 - 11:10:11 GMT-3
Hi,Jc:
I have another problem:
Why not have the connected addresses been redistributed into EIGRP?
!
router ospf 73
log-adjacency-changes
area 112 virtual-link 3.3.3.3
redistribute eigrp 100 metric 2000 subnets
network 3.3.5.5 0.0.0.0 area 0.0.0.0
network 3.3.35.5 0.0.0.0 area 112
network 3.3.125.5 0.0.0.0 area 0.0.0.0
neighbor 3.3.125.2
neighbor 3.3.125.1
neighbor 3.3.35.3 priority 133
!
r5>s ip ei to 3.3.125.0
% IP-EIGRP (AS 100): Route not in topology table
r5>s ip ei to 3.3.35.0
% IP-EIGRP (AS 100): Route not in topology table
r5>s ip ei to 3.3.5.0
% IP-EIGRP (AS 100): Route not in topology table
TIA
dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: "JC" <jc@gigavelocity.com>
To: "'Dillon Yang'" <gzdillon@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:41 PM
Subject: RE: *** Spam *** Re: eigrp neighbor command
> Dillon,
>
> The problem with passive and eigrp is that passive blocks the hello
> packets for neighbor adjacency. RIP doesn't have this requirement
> therefore the passive/neighbor functionality works without problem. You
> can better view these differences by looking at a debug or sniffer
> capture.
>
> Regards,
>
> JC
> GigaVelocity
> www.gigavelocity.com
> Rack rentals and Internetwork Expert Premier Reseller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:43 GMT-3