bergenpeak wrote: > > Reading Doyle's V1 book. Page 195 mentions that when an update > with a > hop count higher than that in the routing table is received for > a route, > the route will go into holddown for 180 [sic] seconds (three > update > periods).
That's to avoid the count-to-infinity problem. If the hop count increases, it's often an indication that count-to-infinity is happening and the other methods for avoiding it, such as split horizon and triggered updates with poisoned routes, failed. I thought Cisco's RIP did this, but I may have gotten it from Doyle or confused it with IGRP. Do you have a method for testing it? It's one of those things you may not find authoritative documenation on. Doyle's book has an errata at Cisco Press but it only mentioned 2 errors (neither of which are related to this question). > > In the cisco page (below) for the "timers basic" command, the > page > states that "...A route enters into a holddown state when an > update > packet is received that indicates the route is unreachable. The > route > is marked inaccessible and advertised as unreachable..." That's probably true. It's not mutually exclusive with the above. I think a route enters into holddown when the local interface fails too, and that's not mentioned either. Priscilla > > It would seem that the explaination on the cisco site is > correct and > the Doyle text is incorrect. > > Could someone confirm or explain what Doyle might be refering > too? > > Thanks > > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1828/products_command_summary_chapter09186a00800eeae6.html > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59993&t=59989 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
