[c-nsp] OSPF NSSA Question
rodunn at cisco.com
Mon Oct 4 15:13:37 EDT 2004
I got behind and lost track of the thread but
couldn't you just do authentication on the
segment and not configure the neighbor that
you don't want to peer with?
passive-interface default makes any interface
covered under a network statement not send
hellos by default. To then enable and interface
to do EIGRP you do "no passive-interface <name>".
neighbor x.x.x.x turns an EIGRP neighbor in to
unicast mode but I don't think that's highly
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 02:05:42PM -0400, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> I too thought I could set the interfaces passive, and do that:
> router eigrp 100
> redistribute connected route-map public_subnets
> redistribute static route-map public_subnets
> passive-interface default
> network x.x.x.146 0.0.0.0
> neighbor x.x.x.150 Vlan903
> eigrp stub connected static summary
> no eigrp log-neighbor-changes
> I do the reverse on the other router.
> They don't ever seem to form a relationship:
> TCF-1.902.1ie2#sh ip eigrp nei
> IP-EIGRP neighbors for process 100
> On Monday 04 October 2004 13:46, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 09:52:37AM -0400, Dan Armstrong wrote:
> > > I could bump up the costs, but it would be nice if there was a clean way
> > > to tell EIGRP to "F-Off don't neighbour with this guy"...
> > IIRC the trick is to make the interface passive, and explicitely list
> > the neighbour you *want* with "router eigrp 4321 / neighbour 184.108.40.206".
> > (Another, if quite ugly, hack would be to control-plane ACL the EIGRP
> > hello packets from the neighbouring 6509 to death...)
> > gert
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
More information about the cisco-nsp