From: Petr Lapukhov (petrsoft@gmail.com)
Date: Thu May 11 2006 - 11:39:28 ART
There is a difference between neighbor command in RIP and EIGRP.
With eigrp, you should _not_ issue "passive-interface" command -
EIGRP will not establish unicast adjacency over passive interface.
At the same time, RIP requires that command, because it still continue
to send multiacst/broadcast updates over interface, even with neighbor
configured.
HTH
Petr
2006/5/11, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>:
>
> That is correct. My understanding is, that when you configure the
> neighbor command that all updates are then "unicast" to only configured
> neighbors, not taking the passive interface into to consideration. I
> believe that your lab had the requirement of not using the passive
> interface and restricting updates to a particular interface. I would be
> interested if there is another way to do this.
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JB [mailto:jellyboy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:18 AM
> To: Schulz, Dave
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: EIGRP - Advertising from specific interface
>
> The neighbor command will unicast advertise to a particular neighbor,
> but I don't think it will tell the router what interface to advertise
> the update out of.
>
> JB
>
> On 5/11/06, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
> > JB - Take a look at the neighbor command. This may help you.
> >
> > Dave Schulz
> > Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > JB
> > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:22 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: EIGRP - Advertising from specific interface
> >
> > The lab I am redoing asks for EIGRP updates to be restricted to a
> > particular interface without using the passive-interface command. The
> > interface address is, for example, 1.1.1.1/24. The WB solution is
> > using #network 1.1.1.1 0.0.0.0
> > I am just wondering if the line #network 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 would also
> > be acceptible if none of the other interface on that particular router
> > falls within that 1.1.1.0/24 range? I know the #network 1.1.1.0
> > 0.0.0.255 is not the best solution, but I believe it still does
> > fulfill the requirements..... Any thoughts???
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > JB
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:21 ART