From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 09:29:27 GMT-3
If you are running PPP, wouldn't this be what "peer neighbor route" was
meant to solve? :)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 6:59 AM
To: 'kevin gannon'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Unnumbered warning ?
Kevin,
I had seen that and wondered about that myself a while back. I never found
any problems using unnumbered interfaces even after a fair amount of
testing.
I still can't explain why CCO says that but it seems not to be true.
BTW, there are lots of mistakes on the doc-cd so maybe this is just another
one or maybe this is one of those things that used to be true but the doc's
were never updated. <shrug??>
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
kevin gannon
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:59 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Unnumbered warning ?
I saw the following warning about unnumbered interfaces on CCO:
"Using an unnumbered serial line between different major networks requires
special care. If, at each end of the link, different major networks are
assigned to the interfaces you specified as unnumbered, any routing
protocols running across the serial line should be configured to not
advertise subnet information."
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr
_
c/ipcprt1/1cfipadr.htm
I can not figure out why ?
Regards
Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:15 GMT-3