From: David Redfern (David.Redfern@didata.com.au)
Date: Wed Oct 25 2006 - 22:51:02 ART
Personally if a question says to turn rip on certain interfaces I would
be specific by using the passive-interface command on the others or the
passive-interface default and doing the no passive-interface on the ones
I want rip to be sending updates on.
But, to throw another argument up in the air!
If you have a question that says advertise interface X via rip, or run
rip on interface Y and mentions that rip must not be 'ACTIVE' on any
other interface. Will passive suffice?
I had a long discussion with a proctor during my lab who informed me
that a 'passive-interface' (for rip) is indeed considered 'ACTIVE' as it
is capable of receiving routes.
What do you guys think?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Ryan
Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2006 6:24 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Passive-interface for loopback0
When doing a practice lab, (or the real lab), regarding interpretation
of the objective, when should you use/not use the passive interface?
For example, I was doing one practice lab (forget which one) where it
said to add all the networks in the rip domain on the diagram to rip,
fairly vague but enough. The diagram shows a nice dashed circle
encompassing just the interfaces. I think there was a specific mention
to not put one interface into the rip protocol on a later objective.
Regardless, we have a generalized requirement to add interfaces to RIP
and to not add a specific interface to RIP on a specific router.
So my interpretation would be to ONLY add the networks that fall with in
the circle/drawing, which would mean adding the passive interfaces on
the other interfaces NOT in the circle, and also to specifically add the
passive interface for the later mentioned objective item.
In the solution, at this step there were no passive interfaces applied
to the general objective, but later on the lab when we got to
redistribution, several interfaces had the passive interface applied.
So my question is, when an objective is general like this, should I keep
my solution general as well? or is more precision better? I personally
like precision, but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot either down
the road...
-Ryan
On 10/21/06, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
> Or perhaps a nice "best practice" thing to get in the habit of is
> using "passive default" and then you must deliberately choose which
> interfaces have peers to use the "no passive ..." on. I've always
> found this helps me keep things clean without wasting MY OWN cpu
> cycles. :)
>
> Just a thought....
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> JNCIE #153, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> IPExpert VP - Curriculum Development
> IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> smorris@ipexpert.com
> http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of Brian Dennis
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:50 PM
> To: Laurent Dupraz; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Passive-interface for loopback0
>
> If you are referring to the CCIE lab then there aren't any rules. If
> they ask you to make them passive then do. If they don't ask then
> don't make them passive.
>
> In the real world if you don't want to waste CPU cycles you can make
> any interface that will not have a "neighbor" passive (i.e loopback).
>
> HTH,
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
> bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of Laurent Dupraz
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:58 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Passive-interface for loopback0
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> what are the rules concerning loopback 0 passive-interface:
>
>
>
>
>
> for example:
>
>
>
> OSPF:
>
>
>
> int loopback0
>
> ip add x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
>
> !
>
> router ospf 1
>
> net ...
>
> passive-interface loopback0
>
> ! ================================= I think not needed
>
>
>
>
>
> RIP
>
> int loopback0
>
> ip add x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
>
> !
>
> router RIP
>
> net ...
>
> passive-interface loopback0
>
> ! ================================= I think needed
>
>
>
>
>
> EIGRP
>
>
>
> int loopback0
>
> ip add x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
>
> !
>
> router EIGRP 1
>
> net ...
>
> passive-interface loopback0
>
> ! ================================= I think needed
>
>
>
> Thanks for your support
>
> Laurent
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:06 ART