Doyle, RIP and Secondary Interfaces [7:31047]
On pages 214- 215 of "Routing TCP/IP by Doyle" mention that when using secondary interfaces with RIP v1 the routing process sees secondary interfaces as separate data links. Thus in a routing table there will be equal-cost routes for the next hop addresses associated with both the primary and secondary addresses. I am not able to reproduce this, in my case the next hop address is always the one associated with the primary IP address. Was this behavior changed some how in later versions of IOS. I am using ver 12.2(1). Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31047&t=31047 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle, RIP and Secondary Interfaces [7:31047]
we just went through something along these lines a couple of weeks ago. Try disabling split horizon on the interface in question and see if the problem is resolved. Chuck ""John Richards"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On pages 214- 215 of "Routing TCP/IP by Doyle" mention that when using > secondary interfaces with RIP v1 the routing process sees secondary > interfaces as separate data links. Thus in a routing table there will be > equal-cost routes for the next hop addresses associated with both the > primary and secondary addresses. I am not able to reproduce this, in my case > the next hop address is always the one associated with the primary IP > address. Was this behavior changed some how in later versions of IOS. I am > using ver 12.2(1). > Any help will be greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31231&t=31047 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
