From: Jared Scrivener (jared@mensa.org.au)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2006 - 05:13:21 ART
Max,
Personally I like to do both. By using passive-interface default and no
passive-interface I'm confident as to which interfaces my routing protocols
are sending updates on. And using the most specific network statement and
mask gives me additional confidence as to the advertised networks.
So - do both unless you are precluded from doing so.
Kind Regards,
Jared Scrivener CCIE #16983
Email: - jared@mensa.org.au
"I can accept failure. Everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not
trying." - Michael Jordan
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
cadet
Sent: Monday, 9 October 2006 5:30 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: EIGRP - limit distribution updates
Hello GROUP,
Are there any recommendation about using in EIGRP (for example) next
configuration if I want to limit distribution updates only to specified
interface:
router eigrp 1
network 10.10.10.1 0.0.0.0
or
router eigrp 1
default passive-interface
no passive-interface fa0/0
network 10.10.10.0 0.0.0.255
-- Best regards, Max
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:04 ART