From: Peter Stephan (engpeter@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2008 - 13:42:16 ART
Just to remember:
In EIGRP:
If you enable unicast updates on an interface, you DISABLE multicasting
updates to 224.0.0.10 through that particular interface.
In RIP v2:
If you enable unicast updates on an interface (through neighbor cmd), you
'DO NOT STOP' multicasting updates.
You use then passive-interface to stop multicasting updates if it was
required.
Don't confuse yourself... just remember in EIGRP you either have unicast or
multicast, in RIP you can have both (unless you use passive-int).
Cheers,
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Nate
Cielieska
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:24 PM
To: Igor Manassypov
Cc: Jonathan Greenwood II; GS CCIE-Lab
Subject: Re: rip passive int with neighbor command
Igor,
When you turn on unicast updates with the "neighbor x.x.x.x" command, this
does not disable the multicast updates out of that interface. It merely
sends that particular neighbor a unicast update and sends out a
224.0.0.9multicast update as well.. to stop the multicast updates you used
the passive-interface command. The passive-interface command has no bearing
on your unicast updates so your updates will be seen on your router..
meeting your requirements.
Regards,
Nate
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Igor Manassypov <imanassypov@rogers.com>
wrote:
> if I configure that interface on which my neighbor sits as passive,
> and I also configure a neighbor command explicitly, are routes going
> to be exchanged?
>
> Jonathan Greenwood II <gwood83@gmail.com> wrote: Igor when you use the
> neighbor command you are sending RIP updates via unicast by
> specifiying the IP Address of the neighboring router as opposed to the
> multicast address 224.0.0.9 which all rip enabled interfaces listen
> on. Passive interface with RIP doesn't allow updates to be sent out
> the interface but an interface can still receive updates from my
understanding.
> To actually form the neighbor relationship the interface should not be
> configured for passive interface. You could also peform RIP
> authentication on both sides depending on the requirements/restrictions of
the question.
>
> HTH
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Igor Manassypov
> wrote:
>
> > Could someone please clarify rip's neighbor command mixed with a
> > passive-interface? For example, if you are asked to make sure that
> routing
> > updates are only sent to a particular router, I will configure a
> > corresponding 'neighbor' entry under my rip process, but to satisfy
> > the requirement that only that particular router gets updates I
> > would also
> need
> > to enable the passive interface. As soon as I do that, there are no
> > more routing updates coming from that interface even though I have
> > an explicit neighbor configured... If I do not use the passive
> > interface, then other routers will get updates breaking the
requirement...
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > ___ 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 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:55 ART