From: Mohamed Saeed (mohamed_saeed2@rayacorp.com)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2006 - 07:43:44 ART
Hi All,
For the below setup, I see that using neighbor statement is suitable as
it will send the updates to the needed neighbors only plus preventing
the router from sending or receiving multicast EIGRP info on the
specified interface, thus interception will not be an issue.
Please note that using the passive-interface command will effectively
disable EIGRP on the interface.
Regards
Mohamed Saeed, CCNP - CCIP
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
WorkerBee
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:48 AM
To: Adam Frederick
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: EIGRP Updates
Authentication can work but I can also intercept your multicast EIGRP
packets.
Read the question carefully, they may want discrete unicast EIGRP
packets only.
On 10/30/06, Adam Frederick <AFrederick@homefederalbank.com> wrote:
> ?
> Emil;
>
> Is using authentication forbidden? If not, that would be an
acceptable
> setup. I'm not sure if your task asks to only allow R5 & R6 to become
> neighbors, but if not, passive-interface default will work & of course
> entering "no passive fa0/0" on R5 & "no passive e0/0" on R6.
> ________________________________
>
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com on behalf of Emil Patel
> Sent: Sun 10/29/2006 2:58 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: nobody@groupstudy.com
> Subject: EIGRP Updates
>
>
>
> If the question asked to only send eigrp updates to r5 fa0/0 and r6
e0/0
> does it implies that updates should be sent unicast with the use
neighbor
> statement.
>
>
>
> Will use of passive default statement accomplish same thing? Using
neighbor
> statement the updates will be sent unicast, but suppressing hello with
> passive interface the updates are sent multicast.
>
>
>
> Can some one shed some light on when to use neighbor v/s passive
interface
> command.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:07 ART