Re: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon

Thank you all for your valuable input on this! I think we have it figured
out : )

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:42 AM, shiran guez <shiranp3_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> just to give you some validation to your conclusions:
>
> RFC 2453 - RIPv2 --
>
> *"4.4 Next Hop
>
> The immediate next hop IP address to which packets to the destination
> specified by this route entry should be forwarded. Specifying a
> value of 0.0.0.0 in this field indicates that routing should be via
> the originator of the RIP advertisement. "*
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Aaron Riemer <ariemer_at_amnet.net.au>wrote:
>
>> Yes that is what I love about this forum :)
>>
>> You get different peoples perspectives and this can make you think about
>> things from a different point of view.
>>
>> I agree with you. The routes are obviously suppressed and I think you make
>> a
>> valid point regarding the next hop value.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Aaron.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Roy
>> Khan
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2011 2:06 PM
>> To: ariemer_at_amnet.net.au; joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com
>> Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon
>>
>> At the end we all are there to discuss our views , ideas and thinkings
>>
>> From: roykhan123_at_hotmail.com
>> To: ariemer_at_amnet.net.au; joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com
>> CC: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon
>> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:04:55 +0600
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes but i am not 100 percent sure about it it could be one of the possible
>> reason..
>> > From: ariemer_at_amnet.net.au
>> > To: roykhan123_at_hotmail.com; joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com
>> > CC: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: RE: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon
>> > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:48:31 +0800
>> >
>> > Hi Roy,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you saying the RIP response route is suppressed from the 'debug ip
>> rip'
>> > output on R2 because it sees that the next hop (12.12.12.2) is itself?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Aaron.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Roy Khan [mailto:roykhan123_at_hotmail.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2011 1:04 PM
>> > To: joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com; ariemer_at_amnet.net.au
>> > Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: RE: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > this is because of next hop value.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Next Hop identifies a better next-hop address, if one exists, than the
>> > address of the advertising router. That is, it indicates a next-hop
>> address,
>> > on the same subnet, that is metrically closer to the destination than
>> the
>> > advertising router is. If the field is set to all zeros (0.0.0.0), the
>> > address of the advertising router is the best next-hop address.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > here r1 is sending back to r2 but look the next hop value 2.2.2.2/32via
>> > 12.12.12.2, metric 2, tag 0
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:22:40 -0400
>> > > Subject: Re: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon
>> > > From: joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com
>> > > To: ariemer_at_amnet.net.au
>> > > CC: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> > >
>> > > OK I have simplified this whole thing to show the root of the problem.
>> > >
>> > > Now we simply have the easiest thing in the world R1 ----- R2
>> connected
>> > via
>> > > ethernet. Split-Horizon is disabled on R1. R1 and R2 have RIP v2
>> enabled
>> > > on the ethernet segment 12.12.12.0/24. R2 advertises in 2.2.2.2.
>> > >
>> > > R2 sends the route...
>> > >
>> > > RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via FastEthernet0/0 (12.12.12.2)
>> > > RIP: build update entries
>> > > 2.2.2.2/32 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
>> > > 12.12.12.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
>> > >
>> > > R1 receives it and sends it back to R2...
>> > >
>> > > RIP: received v2 update from 12.12.12.2 on FastEthernet0/0
>> > > 2.2.2.2/32 via 0.0.0.0 in 1 hops
>> > > 12.12.12.0/24 via 0.0.0.0 in 1 hops
>> > > RIP: Update contains 2 routes
>> > > R1#
>> > > RIP: sending v2 update to 224.0.0.9 via FastEthernet0/0 (12.12.12.1)
>> > > RIP: build update entries
>> > > 2.2.2.2/32 via 12.12.12.2, metric 2, tag 0
>> > > 12.12.12.0/24 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0
>> > > RIP: Update contains 2 routes
>> > > RIP: Update queued
>> > > RIP: Update sent via FastEthernet0/0
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > R2 receives the update...but alas 2.2.2.2 has disappeared from "debug
>> ip
>> > > rip". Am I losing my marbles?
>> > >
>> > > RIP: received v2 update from 12.12.12.1 on FastEthernet0/0
>> > > 12.12.12.0/24 via 0.0.0.0 in 1 hops
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Joe Astorino
>> > <joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > It's actually driving me a bit mad right now.... I came to the same
>> > > > conclusion...hold down timer has nothing to do with it, I had just
>> > jumped
>> > > > the gun and was confused for a minute.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am still not sure why on the spoke I don't see the route at least
>> in
>> > the
>> > > > RIP database or in the debug ip rip output. I keep thinking it must
>> be
>> > > > something silly and simple I just can't put my finger on it right
>> now
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Aaron Riemer
>> > <ariemer_at_amnet.net.au>wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi Joe,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Wouldn't the routes in question have to be in hold down first?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I labbed this up as well. You can definitely see the routes being
>> > > >> advertised
>> > > >> from the spoke to the hub and back to the spoke again (wireshark).
>> I
>> > would
>> > > >> say that IOS is silently binning the route has it has a higher
>> metric
>> > > >> before
>> > > >> the debugging process is invoked.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Would be good to know for sure though :)
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Cheers,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> -Aaron.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > >> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On
>> Behalf
>> Of
>> > > >> Joe
>> > > >> Astorino
>> > > >> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2011 8:24 AM
>> > > >> To: Cisco certification
>> > > >> Subject: Re: Frame-Relay, RIP & Split-Horizon
>> > > >>
>> > > >> OK so I think I figured it out. Simple -- RIP hold timer. If a RIP
>> > router
>> > > >> sees a route with a HIGHER metric hop-count than the one it
>> currently
>> > has,
>> > > >> the hold timer has to expire first to prevent what I'm trying to do
>> > from
>> > > >> happening : ) So ...not nearly as dramatic as I had thought and has
>> > > >> NOTHING
>> > > >> to do with frame-relay and DLCIs, just a general function of RIP
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I'm pretty sure it is just a hold timer thing.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> This is what happens when I don't get enough sleep or as Scott
>> would
>> > say
>> > > >> "not nearly enough caffeine". Still, thanks for reading and I
>> welcome
>> > > >> any
>> > > >> comments
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Regards,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Joe Astorino
>> > > >> CCIE #24347
>> > > >> Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > >> Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Joe Astorino
>> > > > CCIE #24347
>> > > > Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
>> > > >
>> > > > "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Joe Astorino
>> > > CCIE #24347
>> > > Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
>> > >
>> > > "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> > >
>> > >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shiran Guez
> MCSE CCNP NCE1 JNCIA-ENT JNCIS-ENT CCIE #20572
> http://cciep3.blogspot.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
> http://twitter.com/cciep3
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Joe Astorino
CCIE #24347
Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
"He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net