RIP neighboure command question [7:56588]
Hi All, Am doing the written study. In Jeff routing tcp/ip book, under RIP configruation exercise session, there is a question: - RTC -RTD - (192.168.2.1/24) (192.168.3.1/24) (192.168.3.2/24) (192.168.4.1/24) The question is to only use unicast between RTC and RTD The answer is: RTC: network 192.168.2.0 neighour 192.168.3.2 RTD: network 192.168.4.0 neighour 192.168.3.1 My question is isn't network statement network 192.168.3.0 required on both routers to enable rip? I haven't had a lab to test this yet. Can someone please give me a correct answer? Thanks Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=56588t=56588 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP neighboure command question [7:56588]
My question is isn't network statement network 192.168.3.0 required on both routers to enable rip? There seems to be an odd discrepancy between the configurations for RTC and RTD in part 2 of the solution. RTC: router rip network 192.168.2.0 wrote: Hi All, Am doing the written study. In Jeff routing tcp/ip book, under RIP configruation exercise session, there is a question: - RTC -RTD - (192.168.2.1/24) (192.168.3.1/24) (192.168.3.2/24) (192.168.4.1/24) The question is to only use unicast between RTC and RTD The answer is: RTC: network 192.168.2.0 neighour 192.168.3.2 RTD: network 192.168.4.0 neighour 192.168.3.1 My question is isn't network statement network 192.168.3.0 required on both routers to enable rip? I haven't had a lab to test this yet. Can someone please give me a correct answer? Thanks Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=56589t=56588 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP neighboure command question [7:56588]
well, I was going to do a quick and dirty lab for you, but entering the neighbor command has been wreaking havoc on one of my routers. in general, what I seem to have proven is that even with the neighbor statement configured under the RIP process, RIP announcements will not go out an interface that has not been included in the RIP process. router 3 info - Default version control: send version 2, receive version 2 Automatic network summarization is not in effect Routing for Networks: 50.0.0.0 snip some Routing Information Sources: Gateway Distance Last Update 160.160.125.4120 01:27:12 Distance: (default is 120) router rip version 2 redistribute ospf 123 metric 3 passive-interface default no passive-interface TokenRing0 network 50.0.0.0 neighbor 160.160.125.4 no auto-summary note that router 3 is NOT sending advertisements out the token ring interface, even though it is instructed that a neighbor is there. Router_3#ir Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter area * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR P - periodic downloaded static route Gateway of last resort is not set 50.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 50.50.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback50 99.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 99.99.99.1 is directly connected, Loopback1000 160.160.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 16 subnets, 6 masks C 160.160.30.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback100 C 160.160.31.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback101 C 160.160.32.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback102 C 160.160.33.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback103 C 160.160.39.0/26 is directly connected, Loopback204 C 160.160.64.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback500 C 160.160.65.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback501 C 160.160.66.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback502 C 160.160.67.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback503 C 160.160.68.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback504 C 160.160.125.0/24 is directly connected, TokenRing0 C 160.160.39.160/27 is directly connected, Loopback203 C 160.160.39.240/29 is directly connected, Loopback201 C 160.160.39.252/30 is directly connected, Loopback200 C 160.160.39.208/28 is directly connected, Loopback202 C 160.160.254.0/29 is directly connected, Serial0 Router_3# not that router 3 has no rip routes, and apparently is not accepting rip routes across this interface because it is not in the proces.s note that router 4 is sending rip updates across the token ring interface 00:17:13: RIP: sending v2 flash update to 224.0.0.9 via TokenRing0 (160.160.125. 4) 00:17:13: RIP: build flash update entries 00:17:13: 100.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 conclusion - even with the neighbor statement in place, RIP will not send updates out the interface if that interface address is not part of the rip process. any takers? Chuck -- www.chuckslongroad.info pauldongso wrote in message news:200210311321.NAA14582;groupstudy.com... Hi All, Am doing the written study. In Jeff routing tcp/ip book, under RIP configruation exercise session, there is a question: - RTC -RTD - (192.168.2.1/24) (192.168.3.1/24) (192.168.3.2/24) (192.168.4.1/24) The question is to only use unicast between RTC and RTD The answer is: RTC: network 192.168.2.0 neighour 192.168.3.2 RTD: network 192.168.4.0 neighour 192.168.3.1 My question is isn't network statement network 192.168.3.0 required on both routers to enable rip? I haven't had a lab to test this yet. Can someone please give me a correct answer? Thanks Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=56616t=56588 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIP neighboure command question [7:56588]
You lab exercise proves this. It means the solution in the book is wrong. Thanks Paul The Long and Winding Road wrote: well, I was going to do a quick and dirty lab for you, but entering the neighbor command has been wreaking havoc on one of my routers. in general, what I seem to have proven is that even with the neighbor statement configured under the RIP process, RIP announcements will not go out an interface that has not been included in the RIP process. router 3 info - Default version control: send version 2, receive version 2 Automatic network summarization is not in effect Routing for Networks: 50.0.0.0 snip some Routing Information Sources: Gateway Distance Last Update 160.160.125.4120 01:27:12 Distance: (default is 120) router rip version 2 redistribute ospf 123 metric 3 passive-interface default no passive-interface TokenRing0 network 50.0.0.0 neighbor 160.160.125.4 no auto-summary note that router 3 is NOT sending advertisements out the token ring interface, even though it is instructed that a neighbor is there. Router_3#ir Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2 E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS inter area * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR P - periodic downloaded static route Gateway of last resort is not set 50.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 50.50.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback50 99.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 99.99.99.1 is directly connected, Loopback1000 160.160.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 16 subnets, 6 masks C 160.160.30.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback100 C 160.160.31.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback101 C 160.160.32.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback102 C 160.160.33.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback103 C 160.160.39.0/26 is directly connected, Loopback204 C 160.160.64.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback500 C 160.160.65.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback501 C 160.160.66.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback502 C 160.160.67.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback503 C 160.160.68.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback504 C 160.160.125.0/24 is directly connected, TokenRing0 C 160.160.39.160/27 is directly connected, Loopback203 C 160.160.39.240/29 is directly connected, Loopback201 C 160.160.39.252/30 is directly connected, Loopback200 C 160.160.39.208/28 is directly connected, Loopback202 C 160.160.254.0/29 is directly connected, Serial0 Router_3# not that router 3 has no rip routes, and apparently is not accepting rip routes across this interface because it is not in the proces.s note that router 4 is sending rip updates across the token ring interface 00:17:13: RIP: sending v2 flash update to 224.0.0.9 via TokenRing0 (160.160.125. 4) 00:17:13: RIP: build flash update entries 00:17:13: 100.0.0.0/8 via 0.0.0.0, metric 1, tag 0 conclusion - even with the neighbor statement in place, RIP will not send updates out the interface if that interface address is not part of the rip process. any takers? Chuck -- www.chuckslongroad.info pauldongso wrote in message news:200210311321.NAA14582;groupstudy.com... Hi All, Am doing the written study. In Jeff routing tcp/ip book, under RIP configruation exercise session, there is a question: - RTC -RTD - (192.168.2.1/24) (192.168.3.1/24) (192.168.3.2/24) (192.168.4.1/24) The question is to only use unicast between RTC and RTD The answer is: RTC: network 192.168.2.0 neighour 192.168.3.2 RTD: network 192.168.4.0 neighour 192.168.3.1 My question is isn't network statement network 192.168.3.0 required on both routers to enable rip? I haven't had a lab to test this yet. Can someone please give me a correct answer? Thanks Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=56649t=56588 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
