From: Dan C (cdan2154@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2007 - 22:16:56 ART
Hi All,
Another way to block the multicast is to use NAT 222.0.0.9 udp 520 to
unicast to nei.....
cheers,
Dan
On Dec 5, 2007 12:01 PM, Scott Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> wrote:
> It's not necessary to allow the unicasting of RIP updates between two
> neighbors. However, it *is* required to prevent the
> broadcasting/multicasting of updates along side of those unicasts (that is
> to say, a router with only a neighbor configuration under RIP will be
> sending two updates each time - one to the unicast neighbor and one to the
> entire segment). So if the task has to do with preventing others from
> seeing the updates, it's required...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Ali.Huang
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: Asim Zafar
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: rip
>
> As I know there is no special relationship between them.
>
> On 12/5/07, Asim Zafar <asim.mz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> > Is it mandatory to configure passive interface to configure rip in
> unicast
> > mode
> >
> > example:
> >
> > passive interface fas0/0
> > neighbour x.x.x.x
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> >
> > Asim Zafar
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>
> --
> THX.
> Ali.huang
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:29 ARST