From: WorkerBee (ciscobee@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2006 - 00:09:45 ART
Another alternative way is to set that passive interface to
send/receive RIP version 1 if that segment is RIP version 2 domain.
Hence the router will reject
all version 2 RIP routes.
note : RIP v1 no longer tested in the LAB.
On 10/26/06, Ryan <ryan95842@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you would have to configure a distribution list in addition to the
> passive interface and filter all routes to truly make in INACTIVE
>
>
> my 2cents (but keep in mind I'm still learning...)
>
> -Ryan
>
>
>
>
> On 10/25/06, David Redfern <David.Redfern@didata.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> > - NOTICE FROM DIMENSION DATA AUSTRALIA
> > This message is confidential, and may contain proprietary or legally
> > privileged information. If you have received this email in error, please
> > notify the sender and delete it immediately.
> >
> > Internet communications are not secure. You should scan this message and
> > any attachments for viruses. Under no circumstances do we accept liability
> > for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this message or
> > any attachments.
> >
> > ******************************************************************************
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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