yes. The network statement that the authors used for OSPF would include
that interface, so they decided that prevent RouterB and RouterC from
sending updates to RouterA by issuing a passive-inteface statement.
Think about why they did that - one reason they did that is because RouterA
is in a different BGP autonomous system, and one typically prevents IGP
updates from going out to an EBGP neighbor. The network from ser0/0 still
needs to be advertised out ser0/1 (within the same BGP AS), hence its
inclusion in the OSPF process.
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Lee"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: All-In-One, Lab #43, BGP path selection [7:19182]
> Group,
>
> There is a 'passive-interface Serial0/0' subcommand under 'router ospf 64'
> on both RouterB and RouterC. When I do a 'sh ip ospf int s0', I can see
> something like 'No Hellos '.
>
> Am I correct to assume that this 'passive-int serial0/0' is configured to
> prevent RouterB and RouterC from sending Hello packets out of their
> Serial0/0 interface to RouterA ?
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19235&t=19182
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
