James,
I wouldn't have expected that, the likelihood of
the loopback process crashing without the router
crashing as well is miniscule. It looks more likely
that Cisco have put it in for completeness.
I would guess that the extra CPU overhead is also very
small as well.
Regards,
Phil.
--- James Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi
all,
>
> I've been doing some debugging of EIGRP packets and
> noticed that Hello
> packets are sent to the Loopback interface when
> configured:
>
> Feb 2 13:47:29 pst: EIGRP: Sending HELLO on
> Loopback0
> Feb 2 13:47:29 pst: AS XXXX, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0
> idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely
> 0/0
> Feb 2 13:47:29 pst: EIGRP: Received HELLO on
> Loopback0 nbr XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
> Feb 2 13:47:29 pst: AS XXXX, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0
> idbQ 0/0
> Feb 2 13:47:29 pst: EIGRP: Packet from ourselves
> ignored
>
> I've looked in Pepelnjak's book to see if this is
> needed and I don't see it
> mentioned anywhere. Is this not just wasting CPU
> cycles on a meaningless
> endeavor? Is this required in order for EIGRP to
> function properly? If I
> could I'd like to put in a passive-interface for the
> Loopback. Enjoy the
> weekend.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
