From: ccie19226 (ccie19226@googlemail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2007 - 22:29:52 ART
As a side note to this thread.
You could use static NAT to translate any udp 520 traffic destined for
outside local address 224.0.0.9 to the outside global unicast address of the
intended neighbor.
I suppose you could use this is you were forbidden from using 'neighbor' and
'passive-interface' commands under the rip process - but imagine it's only
going to work when there's only one rip neighbor on the subnet.
Cheers,
Con.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Scott Vermillion
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2007 01:02
To: 'Ali.Huang'; 'Asim Zafar'
Cc: 'Cisco certification'
Subject: RE: rip
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:29 ARST