From: Long Kwok (lkwok@ccieunix.com)
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 21:08:23 GMT-3
That is a very good point , so do you think that it is safe to say
though , if you can only send eigrp packets out a specified interface ,
then using method 2 would meet that requirement ? So if using method 2
if we put a sniffer on any of the other interfaces we would expect not
to see that multicast traffic ?
Long
-----Original Message-----
From: san [mailto:san.study@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:56 PM
To: Long Kwok
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Limiting eigrp packets out a Given set of interfaces
Long,
My understanding regarding your option 2 is
network command is used to identify what interfaces of a router
participate in routing process.
If it selects to be E0, then it sends 224.0.0.10 multicast out that
interface.
Neighbor command is the one that does unicast.
/SAN
On 5/8/05, Long Kwok <lkwok@ccieunix.com> wrote:
> What would be the pro's and cons , of the 2 ways to limit the packets
> that an eigrp enabled router would send out. We know of the following
2
> ways other than ACL's and other forcefull blocking methods:
>
> 1- passive-interface
>
> 2- under eigrp process limit your advertisements to only that
> specific participating interface " network 1.1.1.1 0.0.0.0"
>
> I am just curios on weather one method provides benefits over the
others
> ? As fare as I know if you use method 2 , the router wont even
generate
> packets for other interfaces , as you are saying only the interface
that
> has assigned the 1.1.1.1 / 32 address will be participating in eigrp
...
> Any thoughts ?
>
> TIA , Long
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:57 GMT-3